Way too early to figure out who the Dems will be running in '16. We'll have a sense of that by about mid-'14 but not really before then. Possibly someone from the cabinet (who isn't serving there now), more likely a Senator, but most likely a Governor. Right now that person may not even be holding public office.
And will Obama be re-elected? I'll be able to answer that question for you in August of 2012, armed only with the most recent unemployment index, the NASDAQ, and the delta on the most recent quarterly and annual US-GDP.
There's an exception for "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution."
Although how, exactly did Washington, Adams, Jefferson, et al. become citizens of the United States? Maybe they naturalized? It's possible, but they never released their certificates of naturalization. They could have avoided the question entirely if they'd just done that; it's not like they have anything to hide, right? I'm just saying...
Really? Don't you think that a gang of fanatics would have found some flaw then, too? There's no convincing a fanatic that she's wrong about the subject of her fanaticism.
If it's good enough for Donald Trump, it must be good enough for our commenters! Birtherism is a shorthand for "I just plain don't like Obama but I don't feel the need to give a rational reason for why I feel that way." The weird mania surrounding birtherism is strikingly akin to the constant probing about in Bill Clinton's past that resulted in him getting boxed in to lying about a blowjob and then impeaching him for it. Of all the things to criticize a sitting President for, this is strikingly silly and vacuous. And they gain no credibility by whining that a certificate of live birth is somehow materially different than a "long-form" birth certificate. If the birthers weren't so easily dismissed as loony toons, they would be providing a strong argument for amending the Constitution to eliminate the "born in the USA" requirement for being President.
All of us are equal before death, whether we are victorious like Agamemnon or defeated and disgraced like Hecuba. Agamemnon acknowledges as much in ratifying Polymestor's punishment. We are also all equally vulnerable and unable to escape it, which Polymestor's curse make clear. We all die, but how we face death is what distinguishes us from one another.
So the real question is whether we admire Hecuba for how she responds to so much death in her life, or whether we condemn her for creating more death in misfortune's wake. It looks to me that Euripedes admires her (speaking as he does through Agamemnon), but I think that's a difference between modernity and the classical world; we look at the punishment of Polymestor and think that his sons are innocent and should have been spared, and we would have deprived him of his freedom rather than maimed him as punishment for his crime.
I pretty much agree with Pat's sentiments here. War should be the option when it is the realistic choice that is least bad, and that ought to take a fairly extreme set of circumstances.
While each situation is different, the moment of vulnerability for Qaddafi appears to have passed already, so now we're looking at a repressive and hostile dictator doing very bad things to his own people. We look the other way at that sort of thing all the time elsewhere in the world; Libya has oil but then again so does Iran.
I'm not convinced that going to war with Libya is the least bad option.
The cease fire is an interesting move by Gaddafi (is there some generally-accepted way to spell his name?) because it leaves the rebels in control of Benghazi for the time being and deprives western military interests of an opportunity to strike. Now, if we send our planes in, it's debatably an act of aggressive war against Libya -- although the UN resolution provides at least a tissue of moral authority. So any action we take now is going to be ambiguous. It leaves Gaddafi with the political initiative.
The overall command structure of whatever multinational force is going to take up the challenge of enforcing the UN resolution does not appear to be well-worked out yet. That needs to get established and that command structure needs to figure out a realistic way to politically resolve the civil war.
Perhaps Gaddafi and the rebels accept some sort of a power-sharing relationship in exchange for mutual amnesty. I haven't really thought it through yet, but in that sense I'm no worse than anyone else in the actual US, UN or NATO political or military command structures.
So the Eighth Amendment doesn't apply when the defendant is in the military? I thought individual rights began at the point that government power ended. Therefore I contend that the government lacks the (legitimate) power to inflict cruel and unusual punishments.
That means on anyone and by any organ of the government -- it cannot be done by the Department of Justice, it cannot be done by the courts, it cannot be done by the military. It cannot be done to a convict nor to a detainee. It matters not whether the recipient of the treatment is a civilian, an enlisted military man, or even a captured terrorist.
It's not a question of liking the defendant; it's a question of the Constitution depriving our government of the power to do this in the first place.
Confession: I made the mistake of looking. And you're exactly right, Rufus F. What has been learned cannot be unlearned, what has been seen cannot be unseen. The eye bleach, it does no good!
I largely agree with the first two points of what E.D. outlines as the conservative narrative. Point no. 4 has some merit as well, although as phrased I would not agree with it. As I wrote yesterday, I think public sector unions could make a case to justify their own existence but have not done so in the Wisconsin debate. They also need to patrol against excesses particular to the public sector: e.g., police officers accumulate 100% lifetime salary vesting and then become "disabled" on the job, enabling a disability separation at 100% pay and full benefits, resulting in retired police officers earning 200% of their salary and full benefits while also providing no services to the public, or alternatively providing them as "consultants" and triple-dipping from the public trough. The rules allow it, so the individuals who do this aren't breaking any laws, but the rules shouldn't allow it because it is wasteful.
"Dynamism toward reproduction" is just a rephrased form of the shopworn and easily-refuted Argument From Reproduction, it seems. So too with the recital of the "unfaithful Andrew Sullivan" and "Stanley Kurtz confuses correlation with causation" claims -- these are old canards, readily rebutted.
It isn't all that difficult to imagine a future in which the genetic coding within a human egg could be eliminated and replaced with the genetic content of an "X-chromosome" sperm from one of two males, and then fertilized in vitro with sperm from a different male. Genetically, the resulting embryo would be the offspring of the two men.
It might be a bigger technical challenge to replace the genetic coding of a sperm with a female DNA donor (seems to me such a process would necessarily eliminate the possibility of a male offspring) but that misses the point. We're not talking about how realistic particular kinds of science fiction scenarios might be, but rather the relationship between reproduction and marriage. What would that scenario do with Dr. George's argument about "dynamism toward reproduction"?
(The answer is probably "It would do nothing," because as Jason demonstrates, "dynamism toward reproduction" is nothing but code for George's preference that penises interact only with vaginas and vice versa.)
Tom, go check out Alex's post on memorization and my comment, and tell me if you see a difference between our points of view. I can assure you that I'm not Alex Knapp. I've enjoyed his writing at Outside the Beltway for some time, but his perspective is not always congruent with my own.
Scott, I believe the figure you gave is one projection for the deficit this year. If that projection is anything close to accurate, the debt will be close to ten times that amount.
I tend to agree that offering Mubarak a dignified way to exit the field will be the best way to end the violence. The nomination of a vice president in Egypt creates the possibility for a change of government to a transition that can implement more meaningful democracy.
Which should not actually happen until the world can be confident that the new democracy will not align itself with Iran and Hezbollah -- yes I know the Sunni/Shia split is an issue but it wouldn't be an insurmountable one -- or quietly offer succor to Al Qaeda.
What we don't want to see is a "de-Baathification" of the NDP, however; this is where most of the talent involved in running the country is to be found. We should hope for the NDP to be disbanded and its leaders and minions scattered to five or six medium-sized parties. The result would look, in the best-case scenario, like democracy in Mexico, in which as democracy grew more meaningful, the single large ruling party's internal factions eroded into other parties and eventually gave them enough strength to mount meaningful challenges.
Hmm. The conclusion one would first jump to after this observation is that a well-functioning society requires a hybrid of both a degree of free market capitalism for wealth generation and a degree of governmental involvement to maximize distribution of social goods obtained by way of that wealth generation.
However, such a nuanced, balanced, and pragmatic notion would be ideologically impure for both libertarians, socialists, liberals, and conservatives, so of course such an approach must be rejected out of hand.
On “Birtherism”
Way too early to figure out who the Dems will be running in '16. We'll have a sense of that by about mid-'14 but not really before then. Possibly someone from the cabinet (who isn't serving there now), more likely a Senator, but most likely a Governor. Right now that person may not even be holding public office.
And will Obama be re-elected? I'll be able to answer that question for you in August of 2012, armed only with the most recent unemployment index, the NASDAQ, and the delta on the most recent quarterly and annual US-GDP.
"
Dude, your uncle was Gummo Marx, the notorious Presidential assassin? Well, that's my daily brush with fame!
"
What, you expect this stuff to make sense?
"
No, he's literally Hitler!
I suppose he could be both. And he could be both a secret Muslim and an atheist at the same time too.
"
There's an exception for "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution."
Although how, exactly did Washington, Adams, Jefferson, et al. become citizens of the United States? Maybe they naturalized? It's possible, but they never released their certificates of naturalization. They could have avoided the question entirely if they'd just done that; it's not like they have anything to hide, right? I'm just saying...
"
Who shot JFK?
"
Really? Don't you think that a gang of fanatics would have found some flaw then, too? There's no convincing a fanatic that she's wrong about the subject of her fanaticism.
"
If it's good enough for Donald Trump, it must be good enough for our commenters! Birtherism is a shorthand for "I just plain don't like Obama but I don't feel the need to give a rational reason for why I feel that way." The weird mania surrounding birtherism is strikingly akin to the constant probing about in Bill Clinton's past that resulted in him getting boxed in to lying about a blowjob and then impeaching him for it. Of all the things to criticize a sitting President for, this is strikingly silly and vacuous. And they gain no credibility by whining that a certificate of live birth is somehow materially different than a "long-form" birth certificate. If the birthers weren't so easily dismissed as loony toons, they would be providing a strong argument for amending the Constitution to eliminate the "born in the USA" requirement for being President.
On “Euripides: “Hecuba”- Nobility Outs Itself”
All of us are equal before death, whether we are victorious like Agamemnon or defeated and disgraced like Hecuba. Agamemnon acknowledges as much in ratifying Polymestor's punishment. We are also all equally vulnerable and unable to escape it, which Polymestor's curse make clear. We all die, but how we face death is what distinguishes us from one another.
So the real question is whether we admire Hecuba for how she responds to so much death in her life, or whether we condemn her for creating more death in misfortune's wake. It looks to me that Euripedes admires her (speaking as he does through Agamemnon), but I think that's a difference between modernity and the classical world; we look at the punishment of Polymestor and think that his sons are innocent and should have been spared, and we would have deprived him of his freedom rather than maimed him as punishment for his crime.
On “On Libya and the Moral Case Against Intervention”
I pretty much agree with Pat's sentiments here. War should be the option when it is the realistic choice that is least bad, and that ought to take a fairly extreme set of circumstances.
While each situation is different, the moment of vulnerability for Qaddafi appears to have passed already, so now we're looking at a repressive and hostile dictator doing very bad things to his own people. We look the other way at that sort of thing all the time elsewhere in the world; Libya has oil but then again so does Iran.
I'm not convinced that going to war with Libya is the least bad option.
On “Libya and the American Interest”
The cease fire is an interesting move by Gaddafi (is there some generally-accepted way to spell his name?) because it leaves the rebels in control of Benghazi for the time being and deprives western military interests of an opportunity to strike. Now, if we send our planes in, it's debatably an act of aggressive war against Libya -- although the UN resolution provides at least a tissue of moral authority. So any action we take now is going to be ambiguous. It leaves Gaddafi with the political initiative.
The overall command structure of whatever multinational force is going to take up the challenge of enforcing the UN resolution does not appear to be well-worked out yet. That needs to get established and that command structure needs to figure out a realistic way to politically resolve the civil war.
Perhaps Gaddafi and the rebels accept some sort of a power-sharing relationship in exchange for mutual amnesty. I haven't really thought it through yet, but in that sense I'm no worse than anyone else in the actual US, UN or NATO political or military command structures.
On “The Crime of Making the Government Look Foolish”
So the Eighth Amendment doesn't apply when the defendant is in the military? I thought individual rights began at the point that government power ended. Therefore I contend that the government lacks the (legitimate) power to inflict cruel and unusual punishments.
That means on anyone and by any organ of the government -- it cannot be done by the Department of Justice, it cannot be done by the courts, it cannot be done by the military. It cannot be done to a convict nor to a detainee. It matters not whether the recipient of the treatment is a civilian, an enlisted military man, or even a captured terrorist.
It's not a question of liking the defendant; it's a question of the Constitution depriving our government of the power to do this in the first place.
On “Education and Entertainment; University and Community”
Tip your waitresses, they're working hard out there. Jaybird performs here every Thursday night, folks, so come on back for more next week!
"
Confession: I made the mistake of looking. And you're exactly right, Rufus F. What has been learned cannot be unlearned, what has been seen cannot be unseen. The eye bleach, it does no good!
On “The Death and Life of the Great American Middle Class”
I should add, though, that my disagreement with points 3, 5, and 6 apparently brands me as a liberal.
"
I largely agree with the first two points of what E.D. outlines as the conservative narrative. Point no. 4 has some merit as well, although as phrased I would not agree with it. As I wrote yesterday, I think public sector unions could make a case to justify their own existence but have not done so in the Wisconsin debate. They also need to patrol against excesses particular to the public sector: e.g., police officers accumulate 100% lifetime salary vesting and then become "disabled" on the job, enabling a disability separation at 100% pay and full benefits, resulting in retired police officers earning 200% of their salary and full benefits while also providing no services to the public, or alternatively providing them as "consultants" and triple-dipping from the public trough. The rules allow it, so the individuals who do this aren't breaking any laws, but the rules shouldn't allow it because it is wasteful.
On “Marriage and the Ship of Theseus”
"Dynamism toward reproduction" is just a rephrased form of the shopworn and easily-refuted Argument From Reproduction, it seems. So too with the recital of the "unfaithful Andrew Sullivan" and "Stanley Kurtz confuses correlation with causation" claims -- these are old canards, readily rebutted.
It isn't all that difficult to imagine a future in which the genetic coding within a human egg could be eliminated and replaced with the genetic content of an "X-chromosome" sperm from one of two males, and then fertilized in vitro with sperm from a different male. Genetically, the resulting embryo would be the offspring of the two men.
It might be a bigger technical challenge to replace the genetic coding of a sperm with a female DNA donor (seems to me such a process would necessarily eliminate the possibility of a male offspring) but that misses the point. We're not talking about how realistic particular kinds of science fiction scenarios might be, but rather the relationship between reproduction and marriage. What would that scenario do with Dr. George's argument about "dynamism toward reproduction"?
(The answer is probably "It would do nothing," because as Jason demonstrates, "dynamism toward reproduction" is nothing but code for George's preference that penises interact only with vaginas and vice versa.)
On “The Second Ordinary Blog”
Tom, go check out Alex's post on memorization and my comment, and tell me if you see a difference between our points of view. I can assure you that I'm not Alex Knapp. I've enjoyed his writing at Outside the Beltway for some time, but his perspective is not always congruent with my own.
On “The Ghost in the Square”
Scott, I believe the figure you gave is one projection for the deficit this year. If that projection is anything close to accurate, the debt will be close to ten times that amount.
On “Important Poll to Determine the Respectability of our Readership”
** golf clap **
Well played, sir.
On “Super Bowl Open Thread”
Props! That was very close to the mark, Michael Drew.
On “Ronald Reagan and Hosni Mubarak”
I tend to agree that offering Mubarak a dignified way to exit the field will be the best way to end the violence. The nomination of a vice president in Egypt creates the possibility for a change of government to a transition that can implement more meaningful democracy.
Which should not actually happen until the world can be confident that the new democracy will not align itself with Iran and Hezbollah -- yes I know the Sunni/Shia split is an issue but it wouldn't be an insurmountable one -- or quietly offer succor to Al Qaeda.
What we don't want to see is a "de-Baathification" of the NDP, however; this is where most of the talent involved in running the country is to be found. We should hope for the NDP to be disbanded and its leaders and minions scattered to five or six medium-sized parties. The result would look, in the best-case scenario, like democracy in Mexico, in which as democracy grew more meaningful, the single large ruling party's internal factions eroded into other parties and eventually gave them enough strength to mount meaningful challenges.
"
He also made speeches about abortion being bad but didn't do much there, either.
"
The Steelers are going, greginak. They're going home.
The Packers? They're going to Disneyland, along with the trophy named after their most famous coach.
On “The Ghost in the Square”
Hmm. The conclusion one would first jump to after this observation is that a well-functioning society requires a hybrid of both a degree of free market capitalism for wealth generation and a degree of governmental involvement to maximize distribution of social goods obtained by way of that wealth generation.
However, such a nuanced, balanced, and pragmatic notion would be ideologically impure for both libertarians, socialists, liberals, and conservatives, so of course such an approach must be rejected out of hand.