Technically, if you have a sufficient quantity of the loyalty of the folks with guns, you don't even need to be President to do this. By that point, though, you've dispensed with even the pretense of the rule of law. The NDAA puts a gloss of lawfulness on what you're describing.
But again, doesn't Hamdi v. Rumsfeld mean that despite the NDAA, those terror suspects get some kind of review before an objective decision-maker, someone independent from the pointedly tyrranical President Kuznicki? If you're going to adhere to at least a gloss of lawfulness, you need a plan to colorably address that before proceeding with your plan.
...Or they could just put a cap in your posterior as soon as they got you to a secure location. If the government is that lawless, then there's no point in Congress even bothering to pass a law about when they can or can't do stuff and all of this passing laws, review of judicial precedent, and the rest of it, is all a bunch of wankery.
I don't think we're that far gone. Even Khalid Sheik Mohammed has a lawyer and has had access to the courts.
Dude. Life isn't that bleak; you have access to the internet and enough time to blog so things can't be that awful for you. Maybe swap out the Nine Inch Nails from the shuffle list on your iPod for something with a happier tone. Eat a piece of decent chocolate. Play with a dog. It'll be okay, I promise.
I see the same problem as I have with Lewis' argument from desire. The existence of a desire does not imply the existence of something that satiates the desire. A hungry man may lack the ability to eat; just ask Roger Egbert. A man may be castrated yet still feel the yearnings of carnal desire which are as much psychological as they are physiological. While climbing a mountain, I may greatly want a bridge to cross a crevasse; it is not there. Concededly, it is possible for such a bridge to exist, but it does not and the theist is not arguing that it is possible for God to exist (nearly every atheist would concede that possibility) but rather that He actually does exist.
To be sure, even the atheist feels joy from love; awe when inspired by beauty and grandeur; grief when faced with death; and outrage at injustice. These are ineffable, intangible experiences. Reducing them to neurological phenomena is, in my opinion, a mistake, as this both strips the richness out of the experience and denies that something is happening in the non-solipsistic world (just as reducing the staggering sensation of seeing the Grand Canyon with one's own eyes to a series of visual stimuli and transmission of electricity on the ocular nerve is insufficient to describe the experience).
Nevertheless, experiencing intangible emotions does not imply the existence of something outside of nature intentionally causing the intangible experience to occur (recall that God - in at least His role as Creator - is both an intentional actor and the uncaused cause of all other caused events), even if that causation is only limited to have arranging things such that the experience is possible.
I don't know whether I found the casual acknowledgement of a Kenny G "oeuvre" funnier than "... hard core fury, bringing a rough edge that one might associate more with heavy metal than smooth jazz..."
Bear in mind that originalism is distinguished from textualism here. The 14th is a significant point of departure between the two philosophies; the textualist has little difficulty reaching application of the 14th to sex, while the originalist has two choices -- one of which is a very difficult intellectual gymnastics routine.
Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box.
As to the strength of Okkil Trub's prose, well, that's a function both of time and energy devoted to a project which was, frankly, very nearly skipped altogether.
I'm quick to the dagger eyes, sometimes quicker than is either just or fair. While I might see the parent doing actual parenting when a child cries, the sound is still unpleasant. Which is something I work at being more patient about.
In an ideal world, I could be persuaded to pay extra money for a baby-free flight. But as a practical matter when I shop for air travel I am quite price-sensitive, so I would also probably be willing to take a "discount" of enough money that an infant-populated flight would be my choice.
So, at the end of the day, the airlines are doing it more or less right -- it's a tough enough business for them to stay competitive as it is, and there is probably not enough demand for "baby-free" flights to make up for the loss of position as offering the most competitive available airfare. I get crying babies on my flights because I'm willing to put up with them, the same way I'm willing to put up with commercials on my radio and TV programming.
Race is a part of that equation, I never said otherwise. It's just not the only part of it. Nor do I think it realistically can be isolated -- either in or out of the picture -- because there is so much historical and cultural baggage associated with it, even as social constructs and perceptions about race morph over time.
A century ago, your ancestors and mine were the subject of attempts by the laws and by the prevailing culture to restrict the economic opportunities available to them upon immigration to the US. The cultural differences between the established culture and the new immigrants seemed immense and of great significance back then. Part of that was motivated by popular-with-the-elite notions of "idle, drunken Irishmen" and "swarthy, scheming Italians," which faded away slowly and only with familiarity and proximity. And part of it was motivated by anxiety about the perceived finity of economic opportunities available to those already here and then running the show.
The culture changed to at once be more accepting, the immigrants adapted, their children assimilated. In the twenty-first century, anti-Irish discrimination seems among the most silly of the available flavors of bigotry. The great American melting pot got a few more flavors mixed in to its global cultural fondue. What is happening today with Latino and Asian immigration is really not very different, at least at the macro level. The new spices seem strange and incongruous to those who are used to the older flavors. But this too shall pass, as awkward and painful as the process may be.
And I belatedly notice that the color palette of the two pictures contrasts also -- the first picture is almost all of muted, neutral colors of tan, khaki, and gray. We see lots of shadows, cast by objects within the boys' environment, and by the boys themselves. The world of the Latino boys is somber almost to the point of being sepia-toned. But, the three kids in the middle of the couch (and therefore in the middle of the shot) are wearing bright yellow and red clothing; they are alive! and extrovered! as expressed through their use of outgoing, exuberant colors. The area is so well-lit that none of the happy white kids cast any shadows at all, and so arranged that no shadow whatsoever falls upon any of these fortunate youth.
...inflation requires that there be too much money chasing too little economic production.
Is that not the situation? Dollars are not exactly scarce; the government keeps on generating them. Meanwhile, economic production is down.
I can’t help but be bemused at Al-Jazeera, I mean there’d be fewer more imperial acts the US could take then suddenly taking over Europe’s bond financing, how odd to see them advocating it.
It's not clear that al-Jazeera is itself endorsing the proposal or only running the editorial. Maybe they ran the article in an effort to scare Europeans into getting their collective financial house in order -- that is, what you describe as option #1 must surely be preferable to the U.S. stepping in.
Really? More than 131 million Americans cast votes in the 2008 election for President out of an adult population of about 245 million. These are people who have opted in to the system enough to take the time to vote. I submit that by the act of voting, citizens consent to government by way of participating in it. If they believed the government was illegitimate or that their votes weren't somehow important, they wouldn't vote at all.
The existence of criminals within the citizenry does not obviate the consensus that a substantial majority of the citizenry accepts and consents to the prevailing government. This is so even if majorities (or perhaps vocal pluralities) from time to time chafe against the restrictions which otherwise they accept.
That's a great point. The problem with looking at actions rather than aspirations is threefold, although you're right that actions do speak louder than words.
First, actions are difficult to assign to a collective when dissent is tolerated. It's rare that there are party-line votes in Congress (for instance) and when there are, it's not clear that the partisan discipline truly represents a unity of opinion so much as a recognition of political imperative.
Second, actions are difficult to articulate in a way that are intellectually honest. This is particularly difficult when characterizing things with which you disagree -- the test of whether you have described someone else's actions in an honest way is when the proponent of that action affirms that your description was accurate. Democrats would not affirm that Obamacare was an 'unconstitutional power grab' and Republicans would not affirm that private school vouchers are a 'subsidy to churches.'
Third, it's not always clear when an action is outside of the fold of general partisan thought. Only rarely do the parties have clearly-identifiable leaders; even now it is not apparent to me that a majority of Democrats accept Barack Obama's leadership of their party. So when Congressman "R" introduces Bill "X" into Congress, it's a murky question at best as to whether we can say "All Republicans want policy X."
So why look at aspirational statements? Because they're easier, if imperfect, tools to work with.
The results are all coming in about the same here. Allow me to suggest that this means that there are identifiable and meaningful differences between the parties -- with the acknowledgement that rhetorical style (as an analogue for personality) plays a large factor in addition to substantive policy preferences.
The most obvious sort of flaw with an exercise like this is the complaint that a nominating speech is not really reflective of what the parties want to do. Of course, neither are their platforms. What other medium of comparing and contrasting policy preferences might we use than these?
I don’t think there’s much distance, on the whole, between the highly educated and the highly affluent — certainly not in politics.
The affluent tend to be better-educated than the financially distressed, it is true; and in politics, power does seem to coincide with affluence. I suspect that a correlation-causation confusion is very easy to make given only those facts. Education does not necessarily lead to affluence or power -- part of the frustration that seems to fuel #OWS.
Speaking for myself, I'm well-educated, as I hold a graduate degree. But while I'm financially comfortable, I'm hardly part of "the 1%." If I am, no one's been inviting me to the meetings. I suspect that's true for a lot of people here, both the credentialed and the autodidacts.
Re: the list being selective -- of course it is, that's sort of the point. Reagan did plenty of rather conservative things too: built up the military, nominated Robert Bork to SCOTUS, fired PATCO, used "welfare queens" as political whipping boys, etc. But Reagan could also sit down and trade horses with Tip O'Neill and Teddy K without losing face with his right wing or giving away the farm to the other team.
Re: whose myth is it? Everyone's, kind of. The right looks to Reagan as an avatar of conservatism; the left looks to Reagan as the personification of the Bad Old Days. Neither legend is accurate. Reagan was a President, a politician, and a human being. Not the devil, not an archangel.
I think saying Reagan governed towards the center despite his rhetoric is at least defensible.
Abortion rights were approximately the same in 1989 as they were in 1980, despite all the sound and fury.
Chrysler was bailed out on Reagan's watch primarily to save the jobs of UAW workers.
Reagan approved of amnesty for illegal aliens.
Took half a loaf on the 1981 tax cuts and less than half a loaf on the 1986 tax reform.
Signed health insurance portability and taxes on substandard employer health plans into law.
WARN act approved of by Reagan.
Gave reparations to Japanese-Americans interned during WWII (thus "apologizing for America").
Reauthorized the Voting Rights Act of 1965 despite pressure from his right wing not to do so.
Pushed for the first multi-program Federal welfare program aimed at assisting the homeless in a meaningful way.
Of three Justices to the Supreme Court he wound up nominated, two (O'Connor and Kennedy) were then and even more so now are seen as moderates.
I'm hardly going to say the man was a progressive. But by today's standards -- and even by the standards of the day -- I think it's fair to say that the legend is further to the right than the historical reality.
Of course what you like will be different than what I like, and it seems that your tastes are quite different from mine. That is one of the reasons why the experiential education is a task which cannot be delegated to another. No one can taste the wine for you. Especially if you are in the world of dessert wines and ports, which can become quite expensive quite quickly, acquiring an education about where you money will be best spent to maximize your pleasure is an important part of moving from "Someone who drinks wine every once in a while" to "Someone who knows a thing or two about wine."
On “Perry’s Complaint”
Didn't take long for parodies.
And I was so busy being outraged by the content of the ad that I missed something from the CMTSU department: Perry is wearing a jacket that looks a lot like the one Heath Ledger wore in Brokeback Mountain. Ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife, I tells you what...
On “If I Were President”
Technically, if you have a sufficient quantity of the loyalty of the folks with guns, you don't even need to be President to do this. By that point, though, you've dispensed with even the pretense of the rule of law. The NDAA puts a gloss of lawfulness on what you're describing.
But again, doesn't Hamdi v. Rumsfeld mean that despite the NDAA, those terror suspects get some kind of review before an objective decision-maker, someone independent from the pointedly tyrranical President Kuznicki? If you're going to adhere to at least a gloss of lawfulness, you need a plan to colorably address that before proceeding with your plan.
On “NDAA, Due Process, and the Sixth Amendment”
...Or they could just put a cap in your posterior as soon as they got you to a secure location. If the government is that lawless, then there's no point in Congress even bothering to pass a law about when they can or can't do stuff and all of this passing laws, review of judicial precedent, and the rest of it, is all a bunch of wankery.
I don't think we're that far gone. Even Khalid Sheik Mohammed has a lawyer and has had access to the courts.
On “True Faith To Democracy”
Obviously not. But is the law moral, and should it have to be?
On “On the Seventh Blind Man and the Elephant”
Dude. Life isn't that bleak; you have access to the internet and enough time to blog so things can't be that awful for you. Maybe swap out the Nine Inch Nails from the shuffle list on your iPod for something with a happier tone. Eat a piece of decent chocolate. Play with a dog. It'll be okay, I promise.
"
I see the same problem as I have with Lewis' argument from desire. The existence of a desire does not imply the existence of something that satiates the desire. A hungry man may lack the ability to eat; just ask Roger Egbert. A man may be castrated yet still feel the yearnings of carnal desire which are as much psychological as they are physiological. While climbing a mountain, I may greatly want a bridge to cross a crevasse; it is not there. Concededly, it is possible for such a bridge to exist, but it does not and the theist is not arguing that it is possible for God to exist (nearly every atheist would concede that possibility) but rather that He actually does exist.
To be sure, even the atheist feels joy from love; awe when inspired by beauty and grandeur; grief when faced with death; and outrage at injustice. These are ineffable, intangible experiences. Reducing them to neurological phenomena is, in my opinion, a mistake, as this both strips the richness out of the experience and denies that something is happening in the non-solipsistic world (just as reducing the staggering sensation of seeing the Grand Canyon with one's own eyes to a series of visual stimuli and transmission of electricity on the ocular nerve is insufficient to describe the experience).
Nevertheless, experiencing intangible emotions does not imply the existence of something outside of nature intentionally causing the intangible experience to occur (recall that God - in at least His role as Creator - is both an intentional actor and the uncaused cause of all other caused events), even if that causation is only limited to have arranging things such that the experience is possible.
On “Scaling Perfection : On the Music of Kenny G”
I don't know whether I found the casual acknowledgement of a Kenny G "oeuvre" funnier than "... hard core fury, bringing a rough edge that one might associate more with heavy metal than smooth jazz..."
Brilliant.
On “True Faith To Democracy”
Bear in mind that originalism is distinguished from textualism here. The 14th is a significant point of departure between the two philosophies; the textualist has little difficulty reaching application of the 14th to sex, while the originalist has two choices -- one of which is a very difficult intellectual gymnastics routine.
The other is what Mr. Trub at least attempted, following the example of arch-originalist Antonin Scalia:
As to the strength of Okkil Trub's prose, well, that's a function both of time and energy devoted to a project which was, frankly, very nearly skipped altogether.
On “Not Snakes on a Plane”
I'm quick to the dagger eyes, sometimes quicker than is either just or fair. While I might see the parent doing actual parenting when a child cries, the sound is still unpleasant. Which is something I work at being more patient about.
In an ideal world, I could be persuaded to pay extra money for a baby-free flight. But as a practical matter when I shop for air travel I am quite price-sensitive, so I would also probably be willing to take a "discount" of enough money that an infant-populated flight would be my choice.
So, at the end of the day, the airlines are doing it more or less right -- it's a tough enough business for them to stay competitive as it is, and there is probably not enough demand for "baby-free" flights to make up for the loss of position as offering the most competitive available airfare. I get crying babies on my flights because I'm willing to put up with them, the same way I'm willing to put up with commercials on my radio and TV programming.
On “Illegal Immigration, the Seeds of Racism & the People We’ll Choose to Be”
Sorry, the picture doesn't show up here. My more recent response attempts to move beyond art criticism and focus on cultural integration.
"
Race is a part of that equation, I never said otherwise. It's just not the only part of it. Nor do I think it realistically can be isolated -- either in or out of the picture -- because there is so much historical and cultural baggage associated with it, even as social constructs and perceptions about race morph over time.
A century ago, your ancestors and mine were the subject of attempts by the laws and by the prevailing culture to restrict the economic opportunities available to them upon immigration to the US. The cultural differences between the established culture and the new immigrants seemed immense and of great significance back then. Part of that was motivated by popular-with-the-elite notions of "idle, drunken Irishmen" and "swarthy, scheming Italians," which faded away slowly and only with familiarity and proximity. And part of it was motivated by anxiety about the perceived finity of economic opportunities available to those already here and then running the show.
The culture changed to at once be more accepting, the immigrants adapted, their children assimilated. In the twenty-first century, anti-Irish discrimination seems among the most silly of the available flavors of bigotry. The great American melting pot got a few more flavors mixed in to its global cultural fondue. What is happening today with Latino and Asian immigration is really not very different, at least at the macro level. The new spices seem strange and incongruous to those who are used to the older flavors. But this too shall pass, as awkward and painful as the process may be.
"
And I belatedly notice that the color palette of the two pictures contrasts also -- the first picture is almost all of muted, neutral colors of tan, khaki, and gray. We see lots of shadows, cast by objects within the boys' environment, and by the boys themselves. The world of the Latino boys is somber almost to the point of being sepia-toned. But, the three kids in the middle of the couch (and therefore in the middle of the shot) are wearing bright yellow and red clothing; they are alive! and extrovered! as expressed through their use of outgoing, exuberant colors. The area is so well-lit that none of the happy white kids cast any shadows at all, and so arranged that no shadow whatsoever falls upon any of these fortunate youth.
On “A Financial Marshall Plan”
China sells a bunch of stuff to Europe, too. Why aren't they interested in bailing out their other big customer?
Notwithstanding the foregoing, I think that both the magnitude and the importance of Chinese purchases of U.S. debt is overstated.
"
Is that not the situation? Dollars are not exactly scarce; the government keeps on generating them. Meanwhile, economic production is down.
It's not clear that al-Jazeera is itself endorsing the proposal or only running the editorial. Maybe they ran the article in an effort to scare Europeans into getting their collective financial house in order -- that is, what you describe as option #1 must surely be preferable to the U.S. stepping in.
On “Theocratic Quips Less Scary Than Advertised”
Really? More than 131 million Americans cast votes in the 2008 election for President out of an adult population of about 245 million. These are people who have opted in to the system enough to take the time to vote. I submit that by the act of voting, citizens consent to government by way of participating in it. If they believed the government was illegitimate or that their votes weren't somehow important, they wouldn't vote at all.
The existence of criminals within the citizenry does not obviate the consensus that a substantial majority of the citizenry accepts and consents to the prevailing government. This is so even if majorities (or perhaps vocal pluralities) from time to time chafe against the restrictions which otherwise they accept.
On “An Aspirational Quiz”
That's a great point. The problem with looking at actions rather than aspirations is threefold, although you're right that actions do speak louder than words.
First, actions are difficult to assign to a collective when dissent is tolerated. It's rare that there are party-line votes in Congress (for instance) and when there are, it's not clear that the partisan discipline truly represents a unity of opinion so much as a recognition of political imperative.
Second, actions are difficult to articulate in a way that are intellectually honest. This is particularly difficult when characterizing things with which you disagree -- the test of whether you have described someone else's actions in an honest way is when the proponent of that action affirms that your description was accurate. Democrats would not affirm that Obamacare was an 'unconstitutional power grab' and Republicans would not affirm that private school vouchers are a 'subsidy to churches.'
Third, it's not always clear when an action is outside of the fold of general partisan thought. Only rarely do the parties have clearly-identifiable leaders; even now it is not apparent to me that a majority of Democrats accept Barack Obama's leadership of their party. So when Congressman "R" introduces Bill "X" into Congress, it's a murky question at best as to whether we can say "All Republicans want policy X."
So why look at aspirational statements? Because they're easier, if imperfect, tools to work with.
"
The results are all coming in about the same here. Allow me to suggest that this means that there are identifiable and meaningful differences between the parties -- with the acknowledgement that rhetorical style (as an analogue for personality) plays a large factor in addition to substantive policy preferences.
"
The most obvious sort of flaw with an exercise like this is the complaint that a nominating speech is not really reflective of what the parties want to do. Of course, neither are their platforms. What other medium of comparing and contrasting policy preferences might we use than these?
"
Wow. I go over to a friend's house to watch one game of football and look what happens.
On “The Technocrat’s Burden”
The affluent tend to be better-educated than the financially distressed, it is true; and in politics, power does seem to coincide with affluence. I suspect that a correlation-causation confusion is very easy to make given only those facts. Education does not necessarily lead to affluence or power -- part of the frustration that seems to fuel #OWS.
Speaking for myself, I'm well-educated, as I hold a graduate degree. But while I'm financially comfortable, I'm hardly part of "the 1%." If I am, no one's been inviting me to the meetings. I suspect that's true for a lot of people here, both the credentialed and the autodidacts.
On “Will Mitt Romney be the first Tea Party President?”
Re: the list being selective -- of course it is, that's sort of the point. Reagan did plenty of rather conservative things too: built up the military, nominated Robert Bork to SCOTUS, fired PATCO, used "welfare queens" as political whipping boys, etc. But Reagan could also sit down and trade horses with Tip O'Neill and Teddy K without losing face with his right wing or giving away the farm to the other team.
Re: whose myth is it? Everyone's, kind of. The right looks to Reagan as an avatar of conservatism; the left looks to Reagan as the personification of the Bad Old Days. Neither legend is accurate. Reagan was a President, a politician, and a human being. Not the devil, not an archangel.
"
I think saying Reagan governed towards the center despite his rhetoric is at least defensible.
I'm hardly going to say the man was a progressive. But by today's standards -- and even by the standards of the day -- I think it's fair to say that the legend is further to the right than the historical reality.
On “College is a Consumption Good”
Oh yeah? Well, how do you explain the different avatars, then? Huh, Mr. Rufus F.? If that is your real name...
(Burt Likko, of course, is not my real name. Oh, and I've been drinking so don't take me too seriously here. Really, that was a pretty good response.)
On “Cheap Wine, Expensive Wine, and Good Wine”
Of course what you like will be different than what I like, and it seems that your tastes are quite different from mine. That is one of the reasons why the experiential education is a task which cannot be delegated to another. No one can taste the wine for you. Especially if you are in the world of dessert wines and ports, which can become quite expensive quite quickly, acquiring an education about where you money will be best spent to maximize your pleasure is an important part of moving from "Someone who drinks wine every once in a while" to "Someone who knows a thing or two about wine."
On “Census II : Map Graph!”
Even if we did, I'd still be in California.