I'm not sure whom you're arguing with. It isn't me. To the extent you're trying to answer my question, repeating yourself is not the usual response to "why?"
Exactly. That's why we don't do it that way. The math doesn't work and someone has to be responsible about it.
Given my druthers, I'd be cool with moving from an income tax to a VAT, but in a referendum a majority will be against any tax, unless they think it will land on someone else. Again, the math won't work.
I'm not curious at all. Virtually everyone wants taxes on themselves lowered, spending on themselves increased, and the budget balanced. This, of course, is incoherent. That's one of the reasons we don't submit every legislative issue, or even many of them -- as opposed to the issue of who will represent us in the government -- to a direct popular vote. So why this one in particular?
I have recently been doing a fair amount of reading about a time when "divorce or war" was a real issue -- what the stakes were, who started what, what possibilities were on the table, and who shot them down. That was real, now it's noise.
I used to ask myself often about Nixon, "how did the poor bastard end up like this?" But, ultimately, whatever sad history turned him into what he was (I recommend Farrell's recent biography), it wasn't just his private tragedy anymore. However he got to be that way, he was what he was, and that severely warped person held the most powerful office in the world. Things had to be done.
Based on what we know now, the backstory to how Trump became what he was is far less sad and sympathetic than Nixon's. Nevertheless, it is a human misfortune, even though it is far less of a waste of human potential. But we can explore this some other time. For now, things have to be done.
I don't pretend to know Texas tort law, so I'll restrict my comments to possible federal civil rights suits. It is relevant, but not decisive, that Guyger was off duty. The threshold inquiry for a federal civil rights suit is "state action" or action "under color of law." Was Guyger doing what she did relying, even wrongly, on her status as a cop? Probably not. Being off duty is only part of the analysis. Off-duty cops do cop things all the time, either literally or metaphorically flashing their badges, sometimes properly and sometimes improperly. An off-duty cop who flashes his badge to break up a bar fight and gets a bit rambunctious about it is acting as a cop, using his authority as a cop to get involved in the matter, and can be sued. If he goes home later and beats up his wife, he isn't, and can't. That's just private wrongdoing by a person who happens to be a cop. He wasn't literally or metaphorically flashing his badge and using that status to beat up his wife. (He may have been relying on his status for protection from his brothers in blue, and may have thought that his wife would consider complaining to the cops futile for the same reason, but that is not the same thing.)
Here, it seems, Guyger's story is that she was acting as a confused private citizen who ended up in the wrong apartment and did what an armed and panicky private citizen might do. She wasn't investigating something she thought was going on in the apartment or chasing someone she thought was a criminal into it. Nothing she did, whatever we believe about her story, depended on her status as a cop. She may be a badly-trained cop, and a municipality can be held liable for improper training, but the act still has to be a "cop" act before you get to that. If the city does a bad job of training its cops to drive, that wouldn't make the city liable if she got drunk off duty and ran someone over.
Maybe some Texas lawyer can weigh in on state-law wrongful death suits.
I worked on a criminal bank fraud case in the mid-80's in which I thought we had a defense to the mail/wire fraud claim. In that case, the fraud was completed and the funds taken in person. The only use of the mails and wires was to deposit the already fraudulently obtained funds into the crooked bank's account. While I was working on it, Schmuck came down, making me feel like, well, a schmuck.
Do you really want to put the question of who the asshole is in the Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas scenario up to a majority vote? I don't think much of the idea, but not because I fear the result.
“Let’s put this national religion thing up to a vote of The People!”.
We did that, more or less, in the 1780's, though some folks might want a do-over. But what has any of that to do with who is being the asshole in an ordinary social interaction?
On “Disney Just Made Me Obsolete – AGAIN!”
Given enough monkeys and enough typewriters. . .
"
And they would be found where, and induced to take the jobs how?
"
And replacing them with whom?
On “Beto O’Rourke Doubles Down on Revoking Tax-Exempt Status of Churches Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage”
My meager powers of parody are no match forthe the real thing.
"
yadda yadda yadda ....social objectivity ... yadda yadda yadda
"
The normal course of things. And the normal remedy is the next election.
"
I'm not sure whom you're arguing with. It isn't me. To the extent you're trying to answer my question, repeating yourself is not the usual response to "why?"
"
Exactly. That's why we don't do it that way. The math doesn't work and someone has to be responsible about it.
Given my druthers, I'd be cool with moving from an income tax to a VAT, but in a referendum a majority will be against any tax, unless they think it will land on someone else. Again, the math won't work.
"
I'm not curious at all. Virtually everyone wants taxes on themselves lowered, spending on themselves increased, and the budget balanced. This, of course, is incoherent. That's one of the reasons we don't submit every legislative issue, or even many of them -- as opposed to the issue of who will represent us in the government -- to a direct popular vote. So why this one in particular?
"
Why this as opposed to anything -- indeed, everything -- else?
On “The Trump Impeachment Letter, as Explained by A Christmas Story”
What is that line from The Princess Bride? Something about: "you keep using that word....?"
On “Rosebud”
I have recently been doing a fair amount of reading about a time when "divorce or war" was a real issue -- what the stakes were, who started what, what possibilities were on the table, and who shot them down. That was real, now it's noise.
"
I used to ask myself often about Nixon, "how did the poor bastard end up like this?" But, ultimately, whatever sad history turned him into what he was (I recommend Farrell's recent biography), it wasn't just his private tragedy anymore. However he got to be that way, he was what he was, and that severely warped person held the most powerful office in the world. Things had to be done.
Based on what we know now, the backstory to how Trump became what he was is far less sad and sympathetic than Nixon's. Nevertheless, it is a human misfortune, even though it is far less of a waste of human potential. But we can explore this some other time. For now, things have to be done.
On “Jury Finds Amber Guyger Guilty”
Jeffrey Epstein put out the hit before he died.
On “Asking China to Investigate the Bidens is Worse Than Trump’s Asking the Ukraine”
Who is this "you" of whom you speak?
On “TV Reviews for Regular People: Batwoman”
There is no reason in the world to have white men in blackface playing Othello today.
I think I recall a production of Othello with Patrick Stewart (sans blackface) as Othello and all the other parts taken by black actors.
On “Jury Finds Amber Guyger Guilty”
Like my hypothetical off-duty cop wifebeater.
"
I don't pretend to know Texas tort law, so I'll restrict my comments to possible federal civil rights suits. It is relevant, but not decisive, that Guyger was off duty. The threshold inquiry for a federal civil rights suit is "state action" or action "under color of law." Was Guyger doing what she did relying, even wrongly, on her status as a cop? Probably not. Being off duty is only part of the analysis. Off-duty cops do cop things all the time, either literally or metaphorically flashing their badges, sometimes properly and sometimes improperly. An off-duty cop who flashes his badge to break up a bar fight and gets a bit rambunctious about it is acting as a cop, using his authority as a cop to get involved in the matter, and can be sued. If he goes home later and beats up his wife, he isn't, and can't. That's just private wrongdoing by a person who happens to be a cop. He wasn't literally or metaphorically flashing his badge and using that status to beat up his wife. (He may have been relying on his status for protection from his brothers in blue, and may have thought that his wife would consider complaining to the cops futile for the same reason, but that is not the same thing.)
Here, it seems, Guyger's story is that she was acting as a confused private citizen who ended up in the wrong apartment and did what an armed and panicky private citizen might do. She wasn't investigating something she thought was going on in the apartment or chasing someone she thought was a criminal into it. Nothing she did, whatever we believe about her story, depended on her status as a cop. She may be a badly-trained cop, and a municipality can be held liable for improper training, but the act still has to be a "cop" act before you get to that. If the city does a bad job of training its cops to drive, that wouldn't make the city liable if she got drunk off duty and ran someone over.
Maybe some Texas lawyer can weigh in on state-law wrongful death suits.
On “The Impeachment Meltdown Begins”
Chip, Mike, don't you know that JoeSal doesn't like cultural references like poetry, essays, and Broadway musicals?
On “Wednesday Writs: Schmuck v. United States”
I worked on a criminal bank fraud case in the mid-80's in which I thought we had a defense to the mail/wire fraud claim. In that case, the fraud was completed and the funds taken in person. The only use of the mails and wires was to deposit the already fraudulently obtained funds into the crooked bank's account. While I was working on it, Schmuck came down, making me feel like, well, a schmuck.
On “Sports and Politics: 1869 and 2019”
They were in English, last I looked.
"
This is what happens when you translate Sal-speak into English.
"
Do you really want to put the question of who the asshole is in the Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas scenario up to a majority vote? I don't think much of the idea, but not because I fear the result.
"
“Let’s put this national religion thing up to a vote of The People!”.
We did that, more or less, in the 1780's, though some folks might want a do-over. But what has any of that to do with who is being the asshole in an ordinary social interaction?
"
Well, there’s nothing wrong with snarling “MERRY CHRISTMAS” to the happy holiday wishers.
Well, no. One is politely saying an anodyne thing that happens not to be the preference of the hearer. The other is being an asshole.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.