If what you object to is the filibuster rule, then the solution is not to abandon the idea of a bicameral Congress with a source of power independent from the President's. The solution would be to change the Senate's internal rules to prohibit filibusters.
There is precious little evidence that Rome fell when they sent their sons off to war, yet most Romans were raised in a single parent household.
Indeed, there is a viable theory that Rome fell when the Romans stopped sending their sons off to war and sent surrogates and mercenaries in their places.
My understanding is that the notion of the nuclear family was meant as a contrast to the model of an extended family, in which a common household is made of several generations of people, their siblings and some cousins, and sometimes fosters. The size of a household is driven at least as much by economics as it is by culture, personal preference, or the happenstance of life events like illnesses and deaths, divorce and remarriage.
Yes, but we only want the EPCOT version of other cultures, the ones where people from other parts of the world have charming traditions, colorful traditional garb, big friendly smiles all over their faces, and interesting food to sample. We don't want to see them oppressing their minorities or disfavored groups. We don't want to see them inflicting pain on others for any reason or passing on versions of morality that vary significantly from our own to their children or refusing to accept our superior and benevolent Western technological rationalism. Real multiculturalism would mean tolerating things we don't like.
Having never attempted to purchase narcotics in either present-day Russia or the Soviet Union, I must confess a lack of personal knowledge here.
There are claims that krokodil began as a drug of availability in Siberia; presumably the mules didn't make it that far out there with drugs of higher quality and safety margins, so people made do with what they could get. I am well aware of the irony of calling heroin a "safe" drug by comparison with this stuff.
I can see the outlines of the argument that an entreprenurial, risk-taking, reward-earning, no-apologies spirit has been eviscerated here. (Not sure if I believe it, but I can see the outlines of such an argument.) As I understand his argument, it's the European model of the welfare state that Steyn sees as corrosive to the entrepreneurial spirit that built the US into a thriving economy and a global superpower.
I'd suggest as a counterpoint that the US is still among the least nanny-statish of any nation, industrialized or no. The US never had a monopoly on capitalism; unbridled capitalism built Hong Kong and Macau, for example, but Hong Kong is part of the PRC now with all that implies. All four BRIC nations are trying hard to follow the European model of welfare statery. So are Mexico, RSA, Australia, South Korea, and Japan.
None of which is to say that the US is doing things right, of course. But it may be the case that the US is being less wrong than any of its competitors or trading partners.
Madison feared that democracy would inevitably lead to the mob voting itself unearned benefits, one interpretation of which is the rise of a welfare state. It may be the case that the entire world, as it democratizes, inevitably moves towards the European model decried by Steyn simply as a function of what it is to be democratically self-governing.
Well, this is just a rumor. BofA denied it pretty quickly. I'm guilty of spreading rumors, but the object lesson here may be that we were all quite ready to believe that the government was willing to subsidize a deal like this to the tune of $100B.
Perhaps not in the sense that no one is sleeping with their siblings, running swords through their enemies, or engaging in complex and deadly political and military machinations. At least, I sure hope not.
But there is a concerted effort to tease out human emotional experiences from the books, like loving a sibling that you aren't quite sure you actually like; having to weigh personal advantage against ethical ideals; wrestling with competing visions of the ineffable; or balancing the value of observing the law for its own sake versus taking a chance at a better policy goal with different (or no) rules.
I think you probably don't have to look all that hard to find some resonance.
Of course, I also don't think that the only thing people here are reading is A Song Of Fire And Ice. But it sure is fun.
Liberals should be rooting for Ron Paul with all their might.
First of all, he's more or less on the liberal side of the war on drugs, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Libya, and the war on terrorism. Granted he's no liberal himself (e.g., abortion). But I'm not saying they should vote for him, just hope that he makes an impact in the GOP. After all, the other likely nominees from the GOP aren't exactly any better from a liberal's perspective.
Secondly, were lightning to strike and the planets align as necessary for Paul to actually be competitive in the primaries, this would force substantial policy changes in the eventual GOP nominee's position, at least some of which changes liberals would find palatable.
Thirdly, were I to indulge in a flight of imagination more fantastic than the previous paragraph, a Ron Paul nomination would pretty much guarantee an Obama re-election. Obama could slit a guy's throat on live TV out in the Rose Garden and still get re-elected against Ron Paul a week later.
If the President reads things which mirror his own personal experiences, then that just means he's a lot like the rest of us. Including a goodly number of us here at LOOG.
To be sure, media alarmism is a real phenomenon that often chronicles unreal threats. Let's assume, arguendo, that Krokodil's ghoulish effects and the public health danger it causes have been hugely exaggerated.
That does not respond to the argument that interdiction-based antidrug policies condemn the government to forever play a game of "substance interdiction whack-a-mole" and that some blend of demand reduction and decriminalization is the only way to actually reduce drug use.
I'm not clear on how Corbett's remarks are vindicated by their context, even as set forth in his version of the disputed facts. Bear in mind, I basically agree with the things Corbett was saying (and much of what you say too). But this is a subject upon which government officials, including public school teachers, must have a care to let others make up their own minds about. What I can write about on this blog is one thing; what I could say were I to hold a public office is another.
Because I think the appropriate standard for finding an Establishment is government endorsement of a particular view on religion, I think Corbett crossed the line because even in context, he is telling his students what they ought to believe. The context may temper this, and I indicated in the original post that I thought he only barely crossed the line. That he did so armed with a viewpoint which I find palatable and desirable does not vindicate the fact that an endorsement of a viewpoint did take place; I can feel kindly towards him and sympathize with the emotional context of the back-and-forth between an irritating student and an exasperated teacher while still seeing that indeed, the kid pushed the teacher far enough that the teacher crossed the line from discussion to endorsement and thus Establishment. There are no de minimis violations of the Constitution.
School district was sued, BTW. I'm not sure what standing a parent would have had at any time, though. If it's their ability to control the upbringing of their children, that's a pretty truncated right. It gets back to another ongoing worry of mine, which is who has standing to complain about Establishments anyway?
It's easy to imagine the student being a real jerk. Generally, I would presume that a student who sued a teacher over a difference of opinion on an academic subject to be a jerk. That does not, however, excuse the teacher's being a jerk back.
I suppose that's possible, but barely. Seems to me that those who express opposition to efforts to address environmental concerns in the public policy are motivated by a desire to see a thriving, expanding economy rather than resentment about the extent of Federal landholdings. YMMV.
By the way, I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to see a thriving, expanding economy. I rather like thriving, expanding economies myself.
What the hell, why not? I'm less than halfway through the second book and I already found out from LOOG that Jaime loses his hand later on.
Given where I'm at in the books, I'm thinking that it's totally gonna come down to Ayra Stark going hermana-a-hermana with Daenerys Targaryen for all the marbles, I can just smell it coming.
On “The Constitution is Old”
Wow. Usually when I use the acronym RCC I mean something very different than soda.
"
If what you object to is the filibuster rule, then the solution is not to abandon the idea of a bicameral Congress with a source of power independent from the President's. The solution would be to change the Senate's internal rules to prohibit filibusters.
On “Reihan Salam on race”
I believe you mean "sociopaths," not "psychopaths."
"
Indeed, there is a viable theory that Rome fell when the Romans stopped sending their sons off to war and sent surrogates and mercenaries in their places.
My understanding is that the notion of the nuclear family was meant as a contrast to the model of an extended family, in which a common household is made of several generations of people, their siblings and some cousins, and sometimes fosters. The size of a household is driven at least as much by economics as it is by culture, personal preference, or the happenstance of life events like illnesses and deaths, divorce and remarriage.
"
Yes, but we only want the EPCOT version of other cultures, the ones where people from other parts of the world have charming traditions, colorful traditional garb, big friendly smiles all over their faces, and interesting food to sample. We don't want to see them oppressing their minorities or disfavored groups. We don't want to see them inflicting pain on others for any reason or passing on versions of morality that vary significantly from our own to their children or refusing to accept our superior and benevolent Western technological rationalism. Real multiculturalism would mean tolerating things we don't like.
On “A Ghastly Price For Success: Krokodil”
Having never attempted to purchase narcotics in either present-day Russia or the Soviet Union, I must confess a lack of personal knowledge here.
There are claims that krokodil began as a drug of availability in Siberia; presumably the mules didn't make it that far out there with drugs of higher quality and safety margins, so people made do with what they could get. I am well aware of the irony of calling heroin a "safe" drug by comparison with this stuff.
On ““If you seek our monument, look in the hole””
Taiwan, maybe? The Phillipines? The UAE?
"
I can see the outlines of the argument that an entreprenurial, risk-taking, reward-earning, no-apologies spirit has been eviscerated here. (Not sure if I believe it, but I can see the outlines of such an argument.) As I understand his argument, it's the European model of the welfare state that Steyn sees as corrosive to the entrepreneurial spirit that built the US into a thriving economy and a global superpower.
I'd suggest as a counterpoint that the US is still among the least nanny-statish of any nation, industrialized or no. The US never had a monopoly on capitalism; unbridled capitalism built Hong Kong and Macau, for example, but Hong Kong is part of the PRC now with all that implies. All four BRIC nations are trying hard to follow the European model of welfare statery. So are Mexico, RSA, Australia, South Korea, and Japan.
None of which is to say that the US is doing things right, of course. But it may be the case that the US is being less wrong than any of its competitors or trading partners.
Madison feared that democracy would inevitably lead to the mob voting itself unearned benefits, one interpretation of which is the rise of a welfare state. It may be the case that the entire world, as it democratizes, inevitably moves towards the European model decried by Steyn simply as a function of what it is to be democratically self-governing.
On “Why Do Liberals Care About Ron Paul’s Goldbuggery?”
Art Deco, you and I have crossed swords a bit of late, but this is most impressive. I salute you.
On “Open Thread: The Banks”
Well, this is just a rumor. BofA denied it pretty quickly. I'm guilty of spreading rumors, but the object lesson here may be that we were all quite ready to believe that the government was willing to subsidize a deal like this to the tune of $100B.
On “Presidential Fictions”
Perhaps not in the sense that no one is sleeping with their siblings, running swords through their enemies, or engaging in complex and deadly political and military machinations. At least, I sure hope not.
But there is a concerted effort to tease out human emotional experiences from the books, like loving a sibling that you aren't quite sure you actually like; having to weigh personal advantage against ethical ideals; wrestling with competing visions of the ineffable; or balancing the value of observing the law for its own sake versus taking a chance at a better policy goal with different (or no) rules.
I think you probably don't have to look all that hard to find some resonance.
Of course, I also don't think that the only thing people here are reading is A Song Of Fire And Ice. But it sure is fun.
"
Okay, well, maybe not you, NoPublic.
On “Why Do Liberals Care About Ron Paul’s Goldbuggery?”
Liberals should be rooting for Ron Paul with all their might.
First of all, he's more or less on the liberal side of the war on drugs, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Libya, and the war on terrorism. Granted he's no liberal himself (e.g., abortion). But I'm not saying they should vote for him, just hope that he makes an impact in the GOP. After all, the other likely nominees from the GOP aren't exactly any better from a liberal's perspective.
Secondly, were lightning to strike and the planets align as necessary for Paul to actually be competitive in the primaries, this would force substantial policy changes in the eventual GOP nominee's position, at least some of which changes liberals would find palatable.
Thirdly, were I to indulge in a flight of imagination more fantastic than the previous paragraph, a Ron Paul nomination would pretty much guarantee an Obama re-election. Obama could slit a guy's throat on live TV out in the Rose Garden and still get re-elected against Ron Paul a week later.
On “Presidential Fictions”
If the President reads things which mirror his own personal experiences, then that just means he's a lot like the rest of us. Including a goodly number of us here at LOOG.
On “A Ghastly Price For Success: Krokodil”
To be sure, media alarmism is a real phenomenon that often chronicles unreal threats. Let's assume, arguendo, that Krokodil's ghoulish effects and the public health danger it causes have been hugely exaggerated.
That does not respond to the argument that interdiction-based antidrug policies condemn the government to forever play a game of "substance interdiction whack-a-mole" and that some blend of demand reduction and decriminalization is the only way to actually reduce drug use.
On “A Lost Opportunity In San Juan Capistrano”
But I haven't attacked Atheists at all. I said we are human and fallible. So what?
On “Tripoli and the hawks”
"Hopeful but cautious" describes my mood.
On “A Lost Opportunity In San Juan Capistrano”
Does it change your analysis if you recall that this was a history class, not a biology class?
"
I'm not clear on how Corbett's remarks are vindicated by their context, even as set forth in his version of the disputed facts. Bear in mind, I basically agree with the things Corbett was saying (and much of what you say too). But this is a subject upon which government officials, including public school teachers, must have a care to let others make up their own minds about. What I can write about on this blog is one thing; what I could say were I to hold a public office is another.
Because I think the appropriate standard for finding an Establishment is government endorsement of a particular view on religion, I think Corbett crossed the line because even in context, he is telling his students what they ought to believe. The context may temper this, and I indicated in the original post that I thought he only barely crossed the line. That he did so armed with a viewpoint which I find palatable and desirable does not vindicate the fact that an endorsement of a viewpoint did take place; I can feel kindly towards him and sympathize with the emotional context of the back-and-forth between an irritating student and an exasperated teacher while still seeing that indeed, the kid pushed the teacher far enough that the teacher crossed the line from discussion to endorsement and thus Establishment. There are no de minimis violations of the Constitution.
"
School district was sued, BTW. I'm not sure what standing a parent would have had at any time, though. If it's their ability to control the upbringing of their children, that's a pretty truncated right. It gets back to another ongoing worry of mine, which is who has standing to complain about Establishments anyway?
"
It's easy to imagine the student being a real jerk. Generally, I would presume that a student who sued a teacher over a difference of opinion on an academic subject to be a jerk. That does not, however, excuse the teacher's being a jerk back.
On “The Washington Post has discovered a shocking truth: when it comes to climate change, Republicans are less than convinced”
I think we should, Bob. It's his economy now and he is the architect of significant features of the Federal government's spending habits right now.
Where you and I depart is that I'm far from convinced that had we had McCain instead of Obama, things would be materially different.
"
I suppose that's possible, but barely. Seems to me that those who express opposition to efforts to address environmental concerns in the public policy are motivated by a desire to see a thriving, expanding economy rather than resentment about the extent of Federal landholdings. YMMV.
By the way, I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to see a thriving, expanding economy. I rather like thriving, expanding economies myself.
On “Rioters versus Bankers”
Silly liberals! Relax on a bed instead. More comfortable for both parties.
On “Game of Thrones blogging”
What the hell, why not? I'm less than halfway through the second book and I already found out from LOOG that Jaime loses his hand later on.
Given where I'm at in the books, I'm thinking that it's totally gonna come down to Ayra Stark going hermana-a-hermana with Daenerys Targaryen for all the marbles, I can just smell it coming.