Not that it's particularly small d democratic, but lumping Oman, Saudi Arabia, Baharain, and Kuwait into one big 'tyranical' bin is the same sort of thing that neo-cons do, and the very thing this post is protesting against.
I frankly don't think there's as much daylight between social democratic states in Western Europe and the USA as most would think in the big scheme of things. Even less so if one were to embiggen the comparison to 'Western Europe (& Canada)' which all have selected various combo platters from the full menu of the social welfare state (and other economic characteristics considered in the shopping cart of the left)
I can't find anything to disagree with in this post. I would only add that this conclusion in wardsmith's post immediately antecedent informs much of my libertarianism:
"There’s (mostly) nothing wrong with being law-abiding. Making the laws easier to abide by seems an obvious solution"
This applies across the spectrum, not just in criminal law, but also regulation, and yes, redistribution.
"Do you foresee a sort of backlash in popular shows (alas, I cannot comment on the Sopranos or Mad Men because I don’t watch them), where good and evil become more clear?"
The Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Harry Potter series were both noted in some circles as demonstrating the market potential of a clear Good v Evil story vs all the usual namby pampy morally relativistic stuff. (esp during episodes released back when war was more popular)
100K is completely arbitrary; as it is, I'd rather just let go on exceeding rare events (like the North Hollywood bank robbery or 9/11) than make the the baseline for the response requirements that the government builds it capabilities around. As this may not be politically feasible, it would still be good governance for a single multi-jurisdictional unit for all of the greater LA area.
In any case, what Darren said about Balko. Ten years of reading Radley has turned my military veteran, law &order type, notional Republican self into a dirty hippie / NWA lyric aficionado when it comes to police departments.
"Demilitarizing the police is a pretty fuzzy concept. I’m not actually certain what it means."
No SWAT teams for any berg under 100K and no tanks (aka APC's) for anyone. No use of SWAT teams for any purpose other than someone has someone else at gunpoint. (or other means of deadly force). No more transfers of military surplus gear to police departments.
Here's the best thing about Stewart (and Colbert). It's the only place on TV besides the more obscure CSPAN channels where people will talk about books. And real books, not just 100 page large font ghostwritten hack jobs that people plug on cable news. Real 800 page tomes about Afghanistan and other complex ideas.
The doubt in my mind is that 7 billion people with 200 different governments of widely varying political and cultural systems, not to mention wealth, will ever be able to come to an agreement on the collective action that is both effective and actually followed through on. In the end, it's probably going to be easier to move everyone from Bangladesh to North Dakota.
That is a fair point, but there was nothing, other than sheer impractically, that determined that a state couldn't have held out and gone its own way, never ratifying the new compact. Rhode Island held out for a good bit as it was. (and the bubble players in the late 1780's were only finally brought into the fold with the compromise that as many as 12 new amendments would be ratified forthwith)
So I would respond that a plan that would for one, completely scrap the existing Constitution, and for two, require a lower threshold for approval, would, by historical precedent be the result of *more* overall consensus. Else, would result in a real political split a la 1776 or 1860.
I'm no fence fan, electric alligators or otherwise, but there's important (and often moral) distinctions in barriers that keep people out vice those that keep people in.
I respectfully dissent from the honorable Gentlepersons that have commented before me. I would vote aye without hesitation or reservation. For if there is something that has caused so many legislatures to act in concordance to push for such a convention, then I will take that a prima facie evidence that something is indeed Wrong, and which the Congress is not giving its assent to, against the wishes of the People of the sovereign States.
Sure, theoretically, a convention to draft amendments could wind up rewriting the whole thing, but perhaps not. And in any case, for the results of that convention to have effect, the conventions action must be approved by *38* states - a higher threshold that can be addressed at that time. (and unlikely to be achieved if it literally has come down to 1 state on the 2/3 bubble)
(One of?) The Occupy DC website(s) was very focused on getting the US out of Afghanistan, almost to exclusion of all else. (it was the only thing in the pledge they were proferring; the organizers were also mostly old school Vietnam War Protester veterans
http://october2011.org/
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Some, Many, and Most”
So words don't matter then?
"
Not that it's particularly small d democratic, but lumping Oman, Saudi Arabia, Baharain, and Kuwait into one big 'tyranical' bin is the same sort of thing that neo-cons do, and the very thing this post is protesting against.
"
Greenwald calls Kuwait a 'tyrannical' regime, and it's the Times that gets called out for its reporting?
On “On Paths Taken: A League Census”
I, too, got here via positive liberty, and originally got to that via D.A. Ridgely.
On “Democracy, Coercion, & Liberty”
I frankly don't think there's as much daylight between social democratic states in Western Europe and the USA as most would think in the big scheme of things. Even less so if one were to embiggen the comparison to 'Western Europe (& Canada)' which all have selected various combo platters from the full menu of the social welfare state (and other economic characteristics considered in the shopping cart of the left)
On “Anti-Heroics with a Side of Boredom”
To be clear, I wasn't trying to be charitable at all to that point of view. (though the hypothesis that the Manichean sell tix has some merit)
On “Democracy, Coercion, & Liberty”
I can't find anything to disagree with in this post. I would only add that this conclusion in wardsmith's post immediately antecedent informs much of my libertarianism:
"There’s (mostly) nothing wrong with being law-abiding. Making the laws easier to abide by seems an obvious solution"
This applies across the spectrum, not just in criminal law, but also regulation, and yes, redistribution.
On “Anti-Heroics with a Side of Boredom”
On the other hand, nobody in The Wire is unambiguously good, but nobody (of any alignment) is bored either.
"
"Do you foresee a sort of backlash in popular shows (alas, I cannot comment on the Sopranos or Mad Men because I don’t watch them), where good and evil become more clear?"
The Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Harry Potter series were both noted in some circles as demonstrating the market potential of a clear Good v Evil story vs all the usual namby pampy morally relativistic stuff. (esp during episodes released back when war was more popular)
On “Weekend Navel Gazing: Old Boys Clubs”
Ah, danke mucho
"
open thread question - is there a way to find old 'Off the Cuff' posts after they've scrolled off the sidebar?
"
Wasn't there a woman that had byline privileges a few months ago? What ever happened to her? (I can't think of her name, though)
On “Reining In the SWAT”
and an additional "Like" for the correct spelling of 'Reining'!
and tangentially related to the topic:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-us-drone-20111027,0,1704002.story
On “Comment Rescue: Mike & The Police”
100K is completely arbitrary; as it is, I'd rather just let go on exceeding rare events (like the North Hollywood bank robbery or 9/11) than make the the baseline for the response requirements that the government builds it capabilities around. As this may not be politically feasible, it would still be good governance for a single multi-jurisdictional unit for all of the greater LA area.
In any case, what Darren said about Balko. Ten years of reading Radley has turned my military veteran, law &order type, notional Republican self into a dirty hippie / NWA lyric aficionado when it comes to police departments.
"
"Demilitarizing the police is a pretty fuzzy concept. I’m not actually certain what it means."
No SWAT teams for any berg under 100K and no tanks (aka APC's) for anyone. No use of SWAT teams for any purpose other than someone has someone else at gunpoint. (or other means of deadly force). No more transfers of military surplus gear to police departments.
On “Jon Stewart, Michael Moore, and the Professional Left”
Which was kind of funny, because both Kramer and Stewart could be considered in the same 'soft liberal' wing as Masciotra describes it.
"
Here's the best thing about Stewart (and Colbert). It's the only place on TV besides the more obscure CSPAN channels where people will talk about books. And real books, not just 100 page large font ghostwritten hack jobs that people plug on cable news. Real 800 page tomes about Afghanistan and other complex ideas.
On “Richard Muller and the BEST Climate Data Review”
The doubt in my mind is that 7 billion people with 200 different governments of widely varying political and cultural systems, not to mention wealth, will ever be able to come to an agreement on the collective action that is both effective and actually followed through on. In the end, it's probably going to be easier to move everyone from Bangladesh to North Dakota.
On “Pop Quiz”
That is a fair point, but there was nothing, other than sheer impractically, that determined that a state couldn't have held out and gone its own way, never ratifying the new compact. Rhode Island held out for a good bit as it was. (and the bubble players in the late 1780's were only finally brought into the fold with the compromise that as many as 12 new amendments would be ratified forthwith)
So I would respond that a plan that would for one, completely scrap the existing Constitution, and for two, require a lower threshold for approval, would, by historical precedent be the result of *more* overall consensus. Else, would result in a real political split a la 1776 or 1860.
On “Our Feckless Discourse About Immigration”
I'm no fence fan, electric alligators or otherwise, but there's important (and often moral) distinctions in barriers that keep people out vice those that keep people in.
On “George Washington was wrong”
In a way, Ike's farewell address *was* the 1960 remix of Washington's.
On “Libyan Spider Hole”
Oh, one more lesson. Amazonian bodyguard cadres ain't what they used to be.
"
It's a big blow to the Authoritarian Fashion Industry; Kim Jong-Il simply doesn't have the same pizazz.
On “Pop Quiz”
I respectfully dissent from the honorable Gentlepersons that have commented before me. I would vote aye without hesitation or reservation. For if there is something that has caused so many legislatures to act in concordance to push for such a convention, then I will take that a prima facie evidence that something is indeed Wrong, and which the Congress is not giving its assent to, against the wishes of the People of the sovereign States.
Sure, theoretically, a convention to draft amendments could wind up rewriting the whole thing, but perhaps not. And in any case, for the results of that convention to have effect, the conventions action must be approved by *38* states - a higher threshold that can be addressed at that time. (and unlikely to be achieved if it literally has come down to 1 state on the 2/3 bubble)
On “Found Conversation”
(One of?) The Occupy DC website(s) was very focused on getting the US out of Afghanistan, almost to exclusion of all else. (it was the only thing in the pledge they were proferring; the organizers were also mostly old school Vietnam War Protester veterans
http://october2011.org/
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.