I think that's the first time I heard someone reference "Swingers". I was beginning to think I was the only person in the world who remember the movie.
I used to try to bring it; back when I was single I'd take every opportunity to bring out "There'll be like one chick at the place, and she's not half the woman my girlfriend was but I'm supposed to be all excited 'cause she's wearin' a backpack, and there's thirty assholes all over her 'cause she's the only chick there, and I'm gonna tell you somethin', T, are you listening? I'm not gonna be one of those assholes."
Then I got married and it didn't make sense for me to say that anymore.
Could be an "Avengers project" thing. Nazis in 2011 aren't really likely, but some kind of special executive for counterterrorism, extortion, and revenge can be perpetual. So you introduce Hydra as The Big Baddies so that you can have the Avengers fight them later.
I'm sorry, then; perhaps you could explain how raising the debt limit is different from getting another credit card.
I guess one big difference is that Congress can pass laws declaring that the credit card in question has zero interest and no minimum payments. I sure wish I could do that.
Incidentally, it's informative to look at things passed in the 2008-2009 timeframe, such as the CPSIA. Democrats in Congress are claiming that it's impossible for Republicans to criticize the CPSIA, its implementation, or its ultimate effects, because it was passed by a bipartisan vote. Same with TARP (and remember how TARP was going to be passed by the Democrats despite near-unanimous Republican rejection, and then all of a sudden it got yanked off the floor, and then a few days later it came back and now the Republicans were in favor of it?)
This is like asking why I shouldn't activate that pre-approved credit card I got in the mail. After all, the bank is willing to lend the money and capable of servicing the debt, right?
Exactly. They're taking advantage of being The Party Not In Power; it lets them go on record as having said "no" to everything but not actually stop it passing; if it all goes wrong they can use that as a stick to beat their opponents with, and if it all works out then their opponents can't say they were responsible for stopping a possibly-successful program.
What's supposed to happen is that you do less of X or Y then you'd originally planned.
What actually happens is that people go on TV and cry about how if we do less of X or Y then grandma's going to die, and the only reason that A+B+C can't pay for it is greedy miserly bastards who lack any sense of civic responsibility.
"I have no problem saying the President is cynically refusing to make a move in any direction so he can accuse the GOP of pushing grandma down the stairs. "
"For all this cheap talk about the Founding Fathers, they understood how a well-meaning government could descend into a tyrannous regime in the name of Safety and Security."
And some of them tried their damndest to cause that descent, with the Alien and Sedition Acts.
"Who could do anything about Microsoft and its hegemonic grip on the industry?"
I guess that's why everyone's smartphone runs Windows Mobile, and Microsoft-branded servers with Windows Server OS fill the racks of every data center in the country, and Bing is everyone's first stop for web searches.
If people genuinely are concerned by the things you mention, then it should be extremely easy to start a business that does not do them and is successful.
"Oh, but there's so many regulations that favor big business--" and there's that coercion by the government we were talking about earlier.
"Modified drug laws might work that way: while the sale and use of drugs might be legal, employers would have the right and in many cases the obligation to monitor their employees and fire those who fail drug tests."
Considering that the ADA is being interpreted to say that workplaces cannot fire alcoholics for being drunk, I'd have to say that this is probably pretty unlikely. The only places you'd actually see it enforced are places where you already have no-alcohol policies, and those are few and far between.
"The Financial Crisis was the final nail in the coffin for the Free Market. Henceforward, anyone who says the market is self-correcting might as well say the Earth is flat."
But the market is self-correcting. They don't call it a "bubble" because it keeps on inflating forever...
"This was no merely speculative bubble: it was an end run around market regulations."
and then you say...
"Glass-Steagall had been enacted, written in blood to prevent exactly this sort of trouble, but the Free Market Idiots would have none of it. They just knew better. Sure they did."
So, wait, was there effective regulation or wasn't there? The regulatory agencies were told to back off, both by the regulated industry and by the legislators who direct them. If I jam a penny in the safety valve of my water heater and it explodes, the appropriate conclusion is not "we should all take cold showers because hot water is too dangerous".
BlaiseP, you're making some wonderful arguments against repealing the Twenty-First Amendment.
Why, if we repealed Prohibiton, then it would be totally impossible to control alcohol sales. Anyone, anywhere, would be able to buy any kind of liquor. There would certainly be no age limits, or limits on what activities you could perform after consuming alcohol. There'd be no labeling laws, or laws regarding content or production. Certainly there would be no restrictions on what kind of alcohol you could buy in which kind of stores. And nobody would put any money at all into programs for treating alcohol addiction or alcohol dependency.
"I have only pointed out a simple fact: farms jobs are advertised at the Mexican store in Eau Claire."
Yes, because undocumented Mexicans can't complain about being underpaid and forced to work in poor conditions.
And no, it's not like I'm dreaming of some halcyon day when there were hundreds of good old white boys out there pickin' beans. If the Mexicans weren't available then there'd be machines doing those jobs. And that's because these are shit jobs that nobody should have to do anymore.
No American would take a job as a rickshaw puller, either; would you claim that rickshaw pulling is an engaging and rewarding job that Americans are too fat and rich and happy to be willing to do?
"Naturally, only illegal aliens will do this sort of work and the folks don’t like those Mexicans ’round here."
Ah yes, the age-old "merkins be lazy" slur.
That Eli Whitney. What a fucker, inventing machines to comb cotton. When we had perfectly good colored to do that for us! And they were happy to do it, too. Just look at 'em, workin' out in that field. Outhouse? Hell no, boy, you give 'em an outhouse they'll be hidin' in it all day.
"Alfred the Great paid such ransoms, too: they were cheaper than war."
Yeah, once.
And I think it's important to point out that you're continuing with the theme of "the poor are violent animals and the only way to keep them from rioting and burning our cities is to bribe them".
"Oh but it's not a bribe! It's education and health care and food and a little extra money for entertainment and family care!" Yeah, if you're giving people these things so that they won't kill you then you are bribing them. The fact that you're bribing them with things other than big sacks of cash is irrelevant.
And--I guess I need to make this explicitly clear--I don't think this stuff is bribes, because I do not believe that those who are in poverty are going to violently destroy society.
But then, if you think that danegeld was a good deal and a good way to go, then I guess none of that makes sense to you, does it?
"A real Libertarian seems to understand the poor are surprisingly expensive no matter what approach is taken..."
Oh, so it's about economics after all? Back we go to my earlier comment about bullets costing less than cheeseburgers.
More like "got mine, go get yours". But hey, if you consider it the responsibility of the have-mores to give to the have-less, then what are you doing here posting? Shouldn't you have given your computer to a starving orhpan?
A libertarian would say that if your wants exceed your means, then either get better means or get rid of your wants, because you deserve no more than what you're able to take for yourself.
In other words, get a job. Or get over it. Either way, the poverty of one man is not the obligation of another, in the libertarian way of thinking.
(The libertarian could also be a real dick and point out that if obesity and overuse of recreational drugs are considered endemic problems of poverty, then maybe our definitions of "poverty" are so fucked-up as to be nearly useless. But that's a different argument entirely.)
And "tough talk"? I'm not the one who suggested that we bribe the poor because otherwise they'll riot and kill us. And if you don't understand the very basic historical allusion I made then I'm not sure what to say to you.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Searching For Truth Versus Debating”
Don't forget 4) Which would win, the NCC-1701-D or an Imperial Star Destroyer?
On ““Libertarianism and Madisonianism”
"lying the court" charges are a clear indicator that the prosecutor knows their case is shit. It's a "we know ya dunnit" charge.
On “Mitch McConnell’s minor masterpiece”
I think that's the first time I heard someone reference "Swingers". I was beginning to think I was the only person in the world who remember the movie.
I used to try to bring it; back when I was single I'd take every opportunity to bring out "There'll be like one chick at the place, and she's not half the woman my girlfriend was but I'm supposed to be all excited 'cause she's wearin' a backpack, and there's thirty assholes all over her 'cause she's the only chick there, and I'm gonna tell you somethin', T, are you listening? I'm not gonna be one of those assholes."
Then I got married and it didn't make sense for me to say that anymore.
On “As retcons go…”
Could be an "Avengers project" thing. Nazis in 2011 aren't really likely, but some kind of special executive for counterterrorism, extortion, and revenge can be perpetual. So you introduce Hydra as The Big Baddies so that you can have the Avengers fight them later.
On “Mitch McConnell’s minor masterpiece”
Only someone who doesn't have stairs in her house would say that.
"
I'm sorry, then; perhaps you could explain how raising the debt limit is different from getting another credit card.
I guess one big difference is that Congress can pass laws declaring that the credit card in question has zero interest and no minimum payments. I sure wish I could do that.
"
"What is to stop the President from introducing budget cuts that are a poison pill to republicans?"
What's to stop them from accepting those cuts anyway and then blaming the President when things go tits-up?
The whole point of this exercise is to make it absolutely clear that whichever way this goes, it's the President's mess.
"
Incidentally, it's informative to look at things passed in the 2008-2009 timeframe, such as the CPSIA. Democrats in Congress are claiming that it's impossible for Republicans to criticize the CPSIA, its implementation, or its ultimate effects, because it was passed by a bipartisan vote. Same with TARP (and remember how TARP was going to be passed by the Democrats despite near-unanimous Republican rejection, and then all of a sudden it got yanked off the floor, and then a few days later it came back and now the Republicans were in favor of it?)
"
This is like asking why I shouldn't activate that pre-approved credit card I got in the mail. After all, the bank is willing to lend the money and capable of servicing the debt, right?
On “Reading Gingrich in D.C.”
I'm summarizing the Gingrich/Reagan position, not stating my own.
On “Mitch McConnell’s minor masterpiece”
Exactly. They're taking advantage of being The Party Not In Power; it lets them go on record as having said "no" to everything but not actually stop it passing; if it all goes wrong they can use that as a stick to beat their opponents with, and if it all works out then their opponents can't say they were responsible for stopping a possibly-successful program.
"
What's supposed to happen is that you do less of X or Y then you'd originally planned.
What actually happens is that people go on TV and cry about how if we do less of X or Y then grandma's going to die, and the only reason that A+B+C can't pay for it is greedy miserly bastards who lack any sense of civic responsibility.
"
"I have no problem saying the President is cynically refusing to make a move in any direction so he can accuse the GOP of pushing grandma down the stairs. "
But at least she'll be protected!
On ““Libertarianism and Madisonianism”
"For all this cheap talk about the Founding Fathers, they understood how a well-meaning government could descend into a tyrannous regime in the name of Safety and Security."
And some of them tried their damndest to cause that descent, with the Alien and Sedition Acts.
"
"Who could do anything about Microsoft and its hegemonic grip on the industry?"
I guess that's why everyone's smartphone runs Windows Mobile, and Microsoft-branded servers with Windows Server OS fill the racks of every data center in the country, and Bing is everyone's first stop for web searches.
Oh wait. None of that is true.
"
If people genuinely are concerned by the things you mention, then it should be extremely easy to start a business that does not do them and is successful.
"Oh, but there's so many regulations that favor big business--" and there's that coercion by the government we were talking about earlier.
On “The Post-Drug War World”
"Modified drug laws might work that way: while the sale and use of drugs might be legal, employers would have the right and in many cases the obligation to monitor their employees and fire those who fail drug tests."
Considering that the ADA is being interpreted to say that workplaces cannot fire alcoholics for being drunk, I'd have to say that this is probably pretty unlikely. The only places you'd actually see it enforced are places where you already have no-alcohol policies, and those are few and far between.
On “Libertarianism and Privilege”
True; there's some people out there whose idea of "best guy for the job" is "whoever hasn't had a turn yet".
"
"The Financial Crisis was the final nail in the coffin for the Free Market. Henceforward, anyone who says the market is self-correcting might as well say the Earth is flat."
But the market is self-correcting. They don't call it a "bubble" because it keeps on inflating forever...
"This was no merely speculative bubble: it was an end run around market regulations."
and then you say...
"Glass-Steagall had been enacted, written in blood to prevent exactly this sort of trouble, but the Free Market Idiots would have none of it. They just knew better. Sure they did."
So, wait, was there effective regulation or wasn't there? The regulatory agencies were told to back off, both by the regulated industry and by the legislators who direct them. If I jam a penny in the safety valve of my water heater and it explodes, the appropriate conclusion is not "we should all take cold showers because hot water is too dangerous".
On “Libertarianism & Power”
BlaiseP, you're making some wonderful arguments against repealing the Twenty-First Amendment.
Why, if we repealed Prohibiton, then it would be totally impossible to control alcohol sales. Anyone, anywhere, would be able to buy any kind of liquor. There would certainly be no age limits, or limits on what activities you could perform after consuming alcohol. There'd be no labeling laws, or laws regarding content or production. Certainly there would be no restrictions on what kind of alcohol you could buy in which kind of stores. And nobody would put any money at all into programs for treating alcohol addiction or alcohol dependency.
"
"I’ve been robbed by an addict, a guy I thought I was helping, a guy I’d known for years."
Sooooooo typical. "You've got statistics and reason and logic and rational thinking? Well fuck you coz I got a anecdote!"
"
"I have only pointed out a simple fact: farms jobs are advertised at the Mexican store in Eau Claire."
Yes, because undocumented Mexicans can't complain about being underpaid and forced to work in poor conditions.
And no, it's not like I'm dreaming of some halcyon day when there were hundreds of good old white boys out there pickin' beans. If the Mexicans weren't available then there'd be machines doing those jobs. And that's because these are shit jobs that nobody should have to do anymore.
No American would take a job as a rickshaw puller, either; would you claim that rickshaw pulling is an engaging and rewarding job that Americans are too fat and rich and happy to be willing to do?
"
"Naturally, only illegal aliens will do this sort of work and the folks don’t like those Mexicans ’round here."
Ah yes, the age-old "merkins be lazy" slur.
That Eli Whitney. What a fucker, inventing machines to comb cotton. When we had perfectly good colored to do that for us! And they were happy to do it, too. Just look at 'em, workin' out in that field. Outhouse? Hell no, boy, you give 'em an outhouse they'll be hidin' in it all day.
"Alfred the Great paid such ransoms, too: they were cheaper than war."
Yeah, once.
And I think it's important to point out that you're continuing with the theme of "the poor are violent animals and the only way to keep them from rioting and burning our cities is to bribe them".
"Oh but it's not a bribe! It's education and health care and food and a little extra money for entertainment and family care!" Yeah, if you're giving people these things so that they won't kill you then you are bribing them. The fact that you're bribing them with things other than big sacks of cash is irrelevant.
And--I guess I need to make this explicitly clear--I don't think this stuff is bribes, because I do not believe that those who are in poverty are going to violently destroy society.
But then, if you think that danegeld was a good deal and a good way to go, then I guess none of that makes sense to you, does it?
"A real Libertarian seems to understand the poor are surprisingly expensive no matter what approach is taken..."
Oh, so it's about economics after all? Back we go to my earlier comment about bullets costing less than cheeseburgers.
"
More like "got mine, go get yours". But hey, if you consider it the responsibility of the have-mores to give to the have-less, then what are you doing here posting? Shouldn't you have given your computer to a starving orhpan?
"
A libertarian would say that if your wants exceed your means, then either get better means or get rid of your wants, because you deserve no more than what you're able to take for yourself.
In other words, get a job. Or get over it. Either way, the poverty of one man is not the obligation of another, in the libertarian way of thinking.
(The libertarian could also be a real dick and point out that if obesity and overuse of recreational drugs are considered endemic problems of poverty, then maybe our definitions of "poverty" are so fucked-up as to be nearly useless. But that's a different argument entirely.)
And "tough talk"? I'm not the one who suggested that we bribe the poor because otherwise they'll riot and kill us. And if you don't understand the very basic historical allusion I made then I'm not sure what to say to you.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.