My unlucky youngest brother turned 18 the year NY raised the drinking age to 19 and turned 19 when NY raised the age to 21. Now, for unrelated reasons, he can't drink at all.
I always thought the drinking/driving age was badly handled. In my day, you could get a license at 16 and drink at 18. It's just a fact that young men are lousy drivers, so you have them out on the road doing their hormonal thing and -- WHAM! -- you hit them with booze. Predictably, the next few years are American Carnage until the kids learn to hold their liquor, as most eventually do. As someone whose family was in the beer business, I drank, modestly, well before the legal drinking age, in safe environments, and without the frisson of rebellion. In other countries, I saw kids as young as 12 having a bit of wine or beer with dinner. (The 12-year-old palate generally can't take hard liquor.) I always though we should lower the drinking age to 12, to allow kids to get a grip on their drinking for four years before putting them behind the wheel.
I am not surprised that I have never held public office.
So short of the highly unlikely possibility that the cops will harass the well-off, powerful, and, relatively speaking, law-abiding for no good reason, there is no politically plausible way to get from here to there. Sounds about right. Maybe that explains why the few politicians who push for criminal justice reform represent the marginal constituencies for whom it's a real-life issue, and don't get traction with Real Americans (TM).
Unless by "elections don't matter" you mean that practical politicians have found that one side of an issue wins and another loses, I'm not sure what you're saying, exactly.
There is no logic that demands that tough on crime policies requires that police need to be able to go all Judge Dredd.
It isn't a matter of logic; it is a matter of experience. What politician in actual life runs on "promises of safety, being tough on crime, maybe officers being protected from being sued by the family of a criminal who was killed, who are now looking for a payday," while actually opposing robust immunity for cops. The combination is, to be sure, logically possible, but as a practical political matter it doesn't exist. And I doubt that anyone who tried to thread that needle would get elected in most districts.
In may experience, they certainly are. Law and Order has long been the politically expedient place to be. When is the last time it was a political plus for a judge to be labelled soft on crime?
I mean a little more than "politely ignore," but not much more. I'd say a President's preference is something one could legitimately take into account in a close enough case, but no more than that.
Any of whom could have sued, if they thought they could show the statements to be false, and that the game was worth the candle. Nobody is going to bother to sue you, so you can safely spout off. Doesn't mean you couldn't be sued if somebody cared enough.
OK. If anyone took you seriously, you could easily be sued. Fortunately, this whole exchange will escape the attention of anyone who might want to bother. Obscurity has its advantages.
OMG! An attractive woman had a sex life. With people in her line of work. Bring me the smelling salts.
Some time back, I asked here for the reflections of women, who had sometimes had opportunities to vote for attractive Presidential candidates, on the prospect of men for the first time having a candidate (there were then two or three) that they might like to f**k. Unfortunately, no women took up my invitation. Some men did, and the responses were cringe-worthy to anyone with any self-awareness. Now we will be spared that.
The hypocrisy is she has the resources to send her children wherever she views as best for their education, but people without resources have to be forced into general public education.
Hypocrisy. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you seem to think it means.
Of course people with more resources provide things for themselves or their families that people with fewer resources can't. Like a larger house, a newer car, better medical care, or elite education. No one calls it hypocrisy if a rich person buys a tailored suit and a poor person gets one off the rack at Marshall's. And if that rich person were to support higher taxes on himself to improve the quality of clothing on offer at Marshall's that might be bad policy, but he is shelling out his own money for something that doesn't benefit him in order to make life better for someone else, even if that someone else's life will not, thereby, be as good as his. Whatever else this is, it isn't hypocrisy. So why is it hypocrisy to advocate more spending on public education, to be paid for largely by increased taxes on people who will not themselves use it? And why only for education? I've never seen the "hypocrisy" charge floated for any other issue.
Loathsome as Trump is, he is President, and a Republican governor filling a Senate seat ought to give a Republican President's views respectful attention, even if he or she eventually goes another way. What a back-bench Congresscritter from a different state has to say about the matter is another question. If he wants to endorse someone more congenial in a primary, he has as much right to do so as I do, and no more. Where does he get off trying to muscle the Governor?
I hadn't heard of that kerfuffle either. Turns out that Warren's daughter spent her entire K-12 education in public schools and her son spent K-5 in public schools, but spent 6-12 in a private school. In response to a question suggesting that her support for more money for public schools was hypocritical because her kids attended private school, she said her kids attended public schools, which was, at least, imprecise. It's not clear to me whether the kerfuffle is about her terminological inexactitude or about the substantive charge of hypocrisy. If the latter, I've never understood why people who pay for private schools for their kids and also advocate policies that would raise their own taxes to increase spending on public schools their kids do not use are called hypocrites. There may be other valid critiques of their proposals, but hypocrisy is not one of them, especially since no one, especially including the people who yell "hypocrite," is advocating giving people who can't afford private schools for their kids enough money to pay for them.
And the fact remains that the Democratic Party in recent memory nominated a black candidate, twice. The first time, he beat a seemingly much stronger white opponent. As someone who was sympathetic to a Harris candidacy, I was very unhappy watching it implode. I saw it coming and didn't like what I was seeing. But for all I could see, it was a personal failure, pure and simple.
Maybe one of these days you'll explain what you think the 10th Amendment does, your basis for thinking that it does what you think it does, and its relevance to the issue at hand. (There's a fair amount of actual law on the topic.) Otherwise, it's just name-dropping.
Is AOC actually incorrect? In NYC, that would be the income of a middle-aged cop-schoolteacher couple. Most NYers are perfectly well aware that their NY salaries would go a lot further in, say, Akron or Bloomington -- if they could get them in Akron or Bloomington. I'm quite sure that "flyover" people -- by the way, I've never heard "flyover" used by coastal elites except to quote people who accuse them of despising flyover people -- are smart enough to understand that. Any state, coastal or Real America (TM), with a city of any size has a similar dynamic between the metropolis and the exurbs and rural areas. Are you really suggesting that we carve up not only the country, but the individual states?
On “The Dark Road of Censorship”
My unlucky youngest brother turned 18 the year NY raised the drinking age to 19 and turned 19 when NY raised the age to 21. Now, for unrelated reasons, he can't drink at all.
I always thought the drinking/driving age was badly handled. In my day, you could get a license at 16 and drink at 18. It's just a fact that young men are lousy drivers, so you have them out on the road doing their hormonal thing and -- WHAM! -- you hit them with booze. Predictably, the next few years are American Carnage until the kids learn to hold their liquor, as most eventually do. As someone whose family was in the beer business, I drank, modestly, well before the legal drinking age, in safe environments, and without the frisson of rebellion. In other countries, I saw kids as young as 12 having a bit of wine or beer with dinner. (The 12-year-old palate generally can't take hard liquor.) I always though we should lower the drinking age to 12, to allow kids to get a grip on their drinking for four years before putting them behind the wheel.
I am not surprised that I have never held public office.
On “UPS Truck Hijacked. Hijackers Shot, Killed. UPS Truck Driver Shot, Killed. Bystander Shot, Killed. Passive Voice Used.”
So short of the highly unlikely possibility that the cops will harass the well-off, powerful, and, relatively speaking, law-abiding for no good reason, there is no politically plausible way to get from here to there. Sounds about right. Maybe that explains why the few politicians who push for criminal justice reform represent the marginal constituencies for whom it's a real-life issue, and don't get traction with Real Americans (TM).
On “Not the Bi-Partisan Impeachment They Were Looking For”
I constantly hear a buzzing noise that no one else hears, so I can sympathize.
On “UPS Truck Hijacked. Hijackers Shot, Killed. UPS Truck Driver Shot, Killed. Bystander Shot, Killed. Passive Voice Used.”
So what's your explanation of why so few politicians try to thread the needle? is it a supply-side or demand-side explanation?
"
Unless by "elections don't matter" you mean that practical politicians have found that one side of an issue wins and another loses, I'm not sure what you're saying, exactly.
"
There is no logic that demands that tough on crime policies requires that police need to be able to go all Judge Dredd.
It isn't a matter of logic; it is a matter of experience. What politician in actual life runs on "promises of safety, being tough on crime, maybe officers being protected from being sued by the family of a criminal who was killed, who are now looking for a payday," while actually opposing robust immunity for cops. The combination is, to be sure, logically possible, but as a practical political matter it doesn't exist. And I doubt that anyone who tried to thread that needle would get elected in most districts.
"
Just look at how politicians campaign, from, say, 1964 up to and including our current President.
"
In may experience, they certainly are. Law and Order has long been the politically expedient place to be. When is the last time it was a political plus for a judge to be labelled soft on crime?
On “The Great Georgia Senate Seat War”
I mean a little more than "politely ignore," but not much more. I'd say a President's preference is something one could legitimately take into account in a close enough case, but no more than that.
On “I’m Dreaming of a Bike Christmas”
The old saw that women are obligated to put out if a man buys them lobster
I never knew that one when I was dating, so I probably saved a ton of money. My wife loves lobster, though.
On “The People Have Spoken on Kamala Harris”
That's just wrong, but keep doing your own lawyering.
"
Any of whom could have sued, if they thought they could show the statements to be false, and that the game was worth the candle. Nobody is going to bother to sue you, so you can safely spout off. Doesn't mean you couldn't be sued if somebody cared enough.
"
You know what they say about a man being his own lawyer.....
"
OK. If anyone took you seriously, you could easily be sued. Fortunately, this whole exchange will escape the attention of anyone who might want to bother. Obscurity has its advantages.
"
OMG! An attractive woman had a sex life. With people in her line of work. Bring me the smelling salts.
Some time back, I asked here for the reflections of women, who had sometimes had opportunities to vote for attractive Presidential candidates, on the prospect of men for the first time having a candidate (there were then two or three) that they might like to f**k. Unfortunately, no women took up my invitation. Some men did, and the responses were cringe-worthy to anyone with any self-awareness. Now we will be spared that.
"
The hypocrisy is she has the resources to send her children wherever she views as best for their education, but people without resources have to be forced into general public education.
Hypocrisy. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you seem to think it means.
Of course people with more resources provide things for themselves or their families that people with fewer resources can't. Like a larger house, a newer car, better medical care, or elite education. No one calls it hypocrisy if a rich person buys a tailored suit and a poor person gets one off the rack at Marshall's. And if that rich person were to support higher taxes on himself to improve the quality of clothing on offer at Marshall's that might be bad policy, but he is shelling out his own money for something that doesn't benefit him in order to make life better for someone else, even if that someone else's life will not, thereby, be as good as his. Whatever else this is, it isn't hypocrisy. So why is it hypocrisy to advocate more spending on public education, to be paid for largely by increased taxes on people who will not themselves use it? And why only for education? I've never seen the "hypocrisy" charge floated for any other issue.
On “The Great Georgia Senate Seat War”
Loathsome as Trump is, he is President, and a Republican governor filling a Senate seat ought to give a Republican President's views respectful attention, even if he or she eventually goes another way. What a back-bench Congresscritter from a different state has to say about the matter is another question. If he wants to endorse someone more congenial in a primary, he has as much right to do so as I do, and no more. Where does he get off trying to muscle the Governor?
On “The People Have Spoken on Kamala Harris”
I hadn't heard of that kerfuffle either. Turns out that Warren's daughter spent her entire K-12 education in public schools and her son spent K-5 in public schools, but spent 6-12 in a private school. In response to a question suggesting that her support for more money for public schools was hypocritical because her kids attended private school, she said her kids attended public schools, which was, at least, imprecise. It's not clear to me whether the kerfuffle is about her terminological inexactitude or about the substantive charge of hypocrisy. If the latter, I've never understood why people who pay for private schools for their kids and also advocate policies that would raise their own taxes to increase spending on public schools their kids do not use are called hypocrites. There may be other valid critiques of their proposals, but hypocrisy is not one of them, especially since no one, especially including the people who yell "hypocrite," is advocating giving people who can't afford private schools for their kids enough money to pay for them.
On “A Sudden Outburst of Concern Over Kamala Harris’s Departure”
And the fact remains that the Democratic Party in recent memory nominated a black candidate, twice. The first time, he beat a seemingly much stronger white opponent. As someone who was sympathetic to a Harris candidacy, I was very unhappy watching it implode. I saw it coming and didn't like what I was seeing. But for all I could see, it was a personal failure, pure and simple.
On “Pete Buttigieg’s High Hopes”
Maybe one of these days you'll explain what you think the 10th Amendment does, your basis for thinking that it does what you think it does, and its relevance to the issue at hand. (There's a fair amount of actual law on the topic.) Otherwise, it's just name-dropping.
On “Flying High, and Low”
That is one seriously disjointed F-Mac performance.
On “The People Have Spoken on Kamala Harris”
I've often thought that, though my thought is based on no real information, just that it kind of makes sense to me. Which doesn't mean much.
On “The GOP’s Gossip Girls”
You're assuming there's a point. Don't do that.
On “Pete Buttigieg’s High Hopes”
Is AOC actually incorrect? In NYC, that would be the income of a middle-aged cop-schoolteacher couple. Most NYers are perfectly well aware that their NY salaries would go a lot further in, say, Akron or Bloomington -- if they could get them in Akron or Bloomington. I'm quite sure that "flyover" people -- by the way, I've never heard "flyover" used by coastal elites except to quote people who accuse them of despising flyover people -- are smart enough to understand that. Any state, coastal or Real America (TM), with a city of any size has a similar dynamic between the metropolis and the exurbs and rural areas. Are you really suggesting that we carve up not only the country, but the individual states?
"
That's all very interesting. To whom are you responding? What regional issue do you think you're addressing?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.