As promised, an open thread for all of you to use as you see fit. You can post a new topic, continue a conversation that you were having on the last thread (because I know that it becomes a pain to continue scrolling down to resume the conversation and it also slows way down in loading the longer the thread gets), or even write an article that you want to post. Once I have recovered from my surgery I will be back at writing all the things that either delight or infuriate you! In the mean time you will just have to infuriate each other! But remember to keep it fairly civil as we discuss our differences with respect. I am also going to add a cartoon or two each day. These have no other purpose than to chuckle at. They are nothing more than cartoons that I saw at some point and never used.
.
USWeapon
gmanfortruth
Jon Smith
Life of Illusion
Black Flag®
d13thecolonel
commonman55
8)
Hope your felling better today.
Thanks, G-Man.
Prognosis from doctor:
Permanent damage to elbow and left arm; may lose up to 10% of mobility, but therapy may help
Torn hamstring in left leg, resulting in massive bleeding into tissue – 6 weeks, then 4 weeks therapy. 100% return to normal is expected.
Still only sleeping 3-4 hrs. a night…
Flag, sorry to hear about your elbow & leg, & hope you get better as soon as possible too. If you don’t mind me asking, how did you do that anyway? You take Care as well, okay.
Slipped and fell while running.
Wishing you a speedy recovery, & hope your elbow & leg will feel better soon.
Darn BF, I knew you were hurt, didn’t realize it was this bad-therapy is a great thing though-my husband had a stroke a few years back-couldn’t even make a fist with his right hand and limped on his right leg-had full use back after a few months and they didn’t think he would-so hang in there.
Sorry to hear….I sincerely hope a speedy recovery for you, sir.
Sounds like you dumped a Motorcycle or had a foul opening incident skydiving. I have done both way back in my youth so I know how you feel. Just remember this – you will recover and whatever happened you will have learned from it. In both my mishaps my left leg bore the brunt of it and now my left knee lets me know when the barometer is dropping.
Take care my friendly nemesis, and wether you believe or not we have added you to our prayer chain.
Thanks, Papa – I always appreciate the warm thoughts and prayers of others!
Ouch. Sorry to hear that BF. Hoping for a quick recovery! Definitely go to PT; it can work miracles.
Here you go, Flag. Don’t pretend like it hasn’t crossed your mind.
http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/01/26/video-super-robust-german-robot-hand/
Wipe that smug look off your face, mister.
Hoping you continue to feel better & better with each passing day. Take Care USW.
The situation in Egypt has caught my attention. I feel for the people and hope that changes can be made which will make their lives better. IMHO Mubarak needs to go, keeping him in power will likely result in more violence.
I have 2 quotes I’d like to share.
JIM LEHRER: Has the time come for President Mubarak of Egypt to go, to stand aside?
JOE BIDEN: No, I think the time has come for President Mubarak to begin to move in the direction that — to be more responsive to some of the needs of the people out there.
These are — a lot of the people out there protesting are middle-class folks who are looking for a little more access and a little more opportunity.
And the two things we have been saying here, Jim, is that violence isn’t appropriate and people have a right to protest. And so — and we think that — I hope Mubarak, President Mubarak, will — is going to respond to some of the legitimate concerns that are being raised.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/106430/20110128/joe-biden-mubarak-is-not-dictator-and-should-not-step-down-video.htm
The first paragraph of “Joe Bite-me” really hit a nerve with my. It’s like my wife has given me the “honey-do” list, and I say that I’m fixin’ to get around to thinkin’ about maybe moving in the direction of accomplishing some of these items. The old “round-tuit” speech.
The second quote:
Scott Carpenter, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
But by firing his cabinet and replacing ministers who were committed to liberalizing and privatizing Egypt’s economy, the president maybe sacrificing the country’s economic growth, in an effort to achieve favor of short term political stability, Carpenter added. “It’s not clear he will be able to pull this off.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/28/obama-administration-balance-reform-egypts-government/#ixzz1CR0Qtzuf
Sacrificing economic growth for political expediency. Sounds vaguely familiar.
Mubarak has been in power for 30 years. I don’t think that US pressure can create democracy overnight. It makes as much sense as weaning ourselves off of oil, gas, and coal and going to solar and wind power at the snap of a finger. Obama’s goal of 85% renewables in 25 years is a pipe dream at best, and total BS to any intelligent person.
Last point, then I’ll wait for comments:
The situations in Tunisia and Egypt depended on the internet to increase the number of people organized in protest. The last thing any dictator wants, is for opposing viewpoints to be shared and people to speak out in great numbers.
Wasabi,
There is much to be learned about what is happening. Of all places, I think HuffPo has the best coverage. The similarities between Egypt and the US are easy to see. The Egyptians hated local police and security forces (we have alot of police brutallity here), the Army shows up and the police vanish (a sign that the police know they are wrong?) Moburak was elected by a landslide (many claiming a fixed election), our election process, while not fixed as far as voting, is fixed on the choices. There are many poor people, and food prices are sky high (same here, food prices are rising), unemployment is rampant, especially in the poor and middle classes of Egypt (sound familiar yet). Our unemployment (govt controlled) stats are BS. Other countries are seeing protests against their corrupt Governments, and the sentiment is growing. The key to Egypt is the actions of the military, as was Tunesia.
What I find interesting, there is not a religious or anti-American theme, just people who want freedom and opportunuties for a better life. That sentiment will spread, oil will blast off in price, food will follow. As Black Flag said “get your popcorn ready, the show has started”.
I fear we will see similar actions here in the future, as within the next two years.
PEACE
This was just my knee jerk reaction, I’m researching and hoping for some insight from you SUFA people to educate me further.
Nothing wrong with your reaction at all. Everybody is watching and wondering. I’m intrigued as well. I’m also interested to see who is next. If this was to happen in Saudi Arabia, the far reaching consequences could be very ugly. Prince Turki has already warned of this in Saudi. Heck, Spain has the highest unemployment of any developed nation, and that could be a tinderbox in the waiting.
Replay of the Spanish Civil War?
Now that would be a surprise! Let’s hope this stays in the Middle East for now.
The situation in Egypt is interesting. The talking heads are all for democratization. The students are leading the way. Where exactly have I heard that before? Is there anyone out there who could tell me if historically any student led movement has ever succeeded without being co opted?
I have a really bad feeling about this one. Everybody keeps pointing out how Mubarek is our boy, how we have propped him up. There never seems to be any discussion of how his political party and predecessors were the USSR’s boys, the ’73 war, the Camp David accords, and the why’s of Sadat’s assassination.
US should stay the hell out. Support no one. It’s a lose, lose no matter whose side we take.
concur.
I would concur as well.
SK,
The US is already very involved in this. The US gives alot of funding to Egypts military, hence, the military did not fire on the people. I hope noone thinks that having high ranking Egyptian military in DC when this unfolded is a coincidence. I agree, it is co-opted, likely by our own Govt. It all stinks of fish, and the smell is in a different direction.
Actually, when I said co-opted, I think more about the Muslim Brotherhood. I can remember young Iranian Grad students I knew, in NYC when the Shah was on his way out swearing that they were using the Ayatolla and the fundamentalists not the other way around. We all know how that turned out. When push comes to shove, students don’t have what it takes to line people up before a firing squad, true believers do.
As I said, stand back, let what will happen happen be it butchery on Mubarek’s side or on the side that succeeds him because, in the end, there will be butchery.
SK,
Most past regime changes, as best that I can recall, always had a figurehead that led the opposition. There was no such figurehead, and the guy that just appeared as political leader, hasn’t even lived in Egypt, he’s a UN figurehead, that has been out of the limelight in Egypt. As far as Muslim extremism, I think that is mostly bullshit propaganda to instill fear where there should be none. I’ve come to reject fear, as it has in the past proven false. I will agree that the US needs to mind our own business and leave other nations alone, but I’m not sure it’s the US pulling the strings, since our elected puppets are on the wrong end of the strings!
On Friday, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews blamed the crisis in Egypt on George W. Bush and the Iraq war.
Two days later, climate alarmist extraodinaire Joe Romm blamed it on – wait for it! – global warming:
This summer’s extreme global weather raised fears of a “Coming Food Crisis,” as CAP’s John D. Podesta and Jake Caldwell warned in Foreign Policy: “Global food security is stretched to the breaking point, and Russia’s fires and Pakistan’s floods are making a bad situation worse.” Earlier this month I discussed how, in fact, “Extreme weather events helped drive food prices to record highs.” Back then, experts were worried about food riots. Now they are happening.
The Washington Post reported on the connection between food prices and Tunisian violence in mid-January, in a piece headlined, “Spike in global food prices contributes to Tunisian violence.” [...]
Robin Niblett, director of the Chatham House, was interviewed at Davos (click here) and said the Egyptian riots “were driven partly of course by the rise of food prices.”
NPR had a long story on the subject today, “Rising Food Prices Can Topple Governments, Too.”
After quoting various liberal media sources such as the Post and NPR, Romm reached this hysterical conclusion:
Energy insecurity and climate instability have now become key factors in food insecurity, which in turn has become a key factor in toppling governments. [...]
Those who think that the serious impacts of climate change — and our inane energy policies — on the world economy and U.S. national security are decades away are simply not paying attention.
Those of us that have been monitoring this insanity for years have regularly laughed at all the world’s maladies these folks tie to global warming. Dr. John Brignell, a British engineering professor, publishes a growing list of such conspiracy theories at his website Number Watch.
I guess if Egyptians, after decades of poor treatment by a corrupt, authoritarian government, revolt and possibly topple said government, it’s because in the past 160 years, the planet’s temperature has risen by approximately (and debatably!) one degree Celsius.
Boggles the mind, doesn’t it?
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/01/31/climate-alarmist-blames-egypt-crisis-global-warming#ixzz1CdT3CkNJ
Myself, I think the US & other countries pushing ethanol use is driving the cost of corn and other foods up, which impacts the poor first.
Wow, I’m sure glad we don’t have inflation on gas and food here in the USA.
//sarc off
Brings this to mind!
oops put the wrong version up but you get the idea
great song though!
SK;
Not only should we stay the hell put, but we should stop sending money to other countries. $1.3 Billion to support a DICKtator is a waste, and it is a slap in the face of liberty.
Bring everyone home, start drilling throughout the states, tell the Middle East to keep their damn oil, and tell the UN to deal with it. And get the US out of the UN!!!
CM
Damn keyboard, I ment to say stay the hell out not put
CM
::gazing in to my crystal ball::
Jan 2012: President Common Man issues his first order suspending all foreign aid, recalling all troops, and withdrawing from the UN.
Feb 2012: North Korea nukes Seoul.
Feb 2012: UN collapses.
Feb 2012: A group of nations led by Iran invade Israel.
Feb 2012: China annexes Taiwan.
Feb 2012: Russian annexes all former Soviet satellites.
Mar 2012: Israel nukes Tehran.
Mar 2012: Arab league nukes Israel using weapons purchased openly from China/Russia.
Mar 2012: Drug cartels take over Mexico (more so).
Apr 2012: Russia and China compete for Canadian resources. Threatening hostilities.
May 2012: Canada applies for statehood acknowledging that, in all honestly, they’ve basically already a state anyway.
May 2012: Cuba annexes Puerto Rico because, hey why not?
Jun 2012: The US rejects Canada’s petition. China and Russia both invade, having agreed to split the resources. Mounties put up a spirited defense, but are quickly defeated. Hockey hooligans form rebel resistance army. US shrugs.
Jun 2012: After a several month decline, the world finally decides that US currency is superior to toilet paper only in the fact that it is physically a more hardy material for wiping.
Jul 2012: US begins printing currency on lower quality paper.
Jul 2012: Since no one is bothering to loan to the US anymore, the US flips the bird to the rest of the planet and refuses to pay.
Jul 2012: China invades Alaska. Palin shoots at commies from her front porch, fulfilling her life-long dream.
Aug 2012: The Caribou Treaty is signed ceding Alaska to China in exchange for debt forgiveness and a promise that they will keep the Walmarts open.
Aug 2012: Oil hits $20,000,000,000 / barrel (note, inflation: equivalent to $250 in 2011 dollars)
Sep 2012: Texas, California declare bankruptcy. Texas secedes from the union. California falls into the ocean. Nevada and Arizona narrowly avoid bankruptcy due to revenue from sales of new beachfront property.
Oct 2012: The Loanstar Republic (formerly known as Texas) is attacked by Mexico. Chuck Norris is appointed head of the defense force with D13 as second in command.
Nov 2012: A cold snap and a crumbling infrastructure combine in November, causing power outages and loss of heat in much of the north East for most of the month. The city of Buffalo mysteriously vanishes, never to be heard from again.
Dec 2012: The raptors assault begins. There is no escape. President Common Man is eaten on live TV. Dread Pirate Mathius watches in amusement off the coastal port of Reno.
Jan 2013: President (unspellable raptor noise) gives her state of the union. She is proud and honored to be the first female to hold the office in the US. When Joe Wilson calls out from the audience that the election was rigged (since all humans who attempted to vote were eaten before they got the chance) she responds by devouring him on camera, then continues her speech.
Jan 2013: Red Bull is outlawed. In ‘n’ Out is mandated to open restaurants in every city.
Feb 2013: US economy recovers somewhat due to increased exports of human flesh to the world wide raptor population.
::crystal ball goes hazy::
I’m sorry, that’s all I can see now. Try again later.
Matt;
I have weapons designed for game bigger than raptors, so raptors are not an issue.
Besides D13 would be my VP and as such the raptor population would be more of an ally. As a matter of fact I am sure D13 could breed and train enough to maintain a patrol and ensure our safety.
CM
D13 asks CM for permission to name Matt as Czar over RB production as a viable export to all Nations. Raptor contingent swears allegiance to D13 and secures Coastal Port of Reno. CM appoints D13 as defacto governor of The Lone Star Republic, thereby securing all the assets of said area using illegals as slave labor guarded by Raptoras (Hispanic Version).
World shudders in fear as BF is appointed economics Czar, thereby declaring gold as the new world currency. USW is sworn in as new Defense Secretary and Anita and VH assigned to Health and HUman Resources. JAC is moved to Chief of Staff, thereby placing Buck the Walla MAn in Convservative rehab. G Man is placed in charge of national polics (no pun intended)…. Ray….well…..is Ray.
Hey, that’s a government agency and since these days agencies can write law-does that mean Anita and I can make abortions illegal!!!!!
D13,
You get an “F”
I would do no such thing – otherwise I’d be no different than any other government moron, dictating to the Free Market how to run the Free Market!
I would declare that the Free Market is more than capable of establishing its own currency from whatever basis free men, in their individual choices aggregated, so chose – whether it is pieces of green paper or rocks or apples or anything else….
I knew you would say that! Do I get an “A”?
Unfortunately, though I left it out of my synopsis above, Black Flag did not survive the Raptor Revolution.
He did, however, take a great many of them with him – and he died on the first in of his property.
Ok V let’s get to work. Judy is our secretary in charge of illegal abortions. We’ll get Cyndi and Kathy in there with us and hen party up the rest of the rules. Girls rule..Boys drool
BF,,,,,,it was sarcasm…..I know you would never go to gold…that is why the world shuddered because in the hypothetical….it would be the opposite of what to expect.
Learn to swim, see you down in Arizona Bay.
AND send them a bill for the new infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Regardless of the messenger, take note in this. If anyone here fails to believe that Big Brother is not watching the internet, then I feel bad for you!
Saleh Hijazi, a Human Rights Watch research assistant in Ramallah, sends the following update:
Palestinian Authority security forces shut down a demonstration on January 30, 2011, in front of the Egyptian embassy in Ramallah, after calling in one of the organizers for questioning on January 29 and ordering him to cancel the event notice that he had created on Facebook. Human Rights Watch monitored the demonstration and spoke with participants.
At around 4 p.m., the first of roughly 40 to 50 Palestinian demonstrators began to gather in front of the embassy to show solidarity for ongoing protests in Egypt, but were met by 20 armed police who immediately tried to confiscate cameras and ordered a journalist to turn off her microphone and recorder. Security agents wearing masks drove up in a Palestinian Preventive Security service jeep – which was driving very fast, apparently to intimidate protesters – and were soon joined by officers in two other jeeps and three police cars, and a van of the kind the PA uses for arrests and prisoner transport.
Demonstrators said they had expected a higher turnout, but that Palestinian security agencies had called in one of the organizers of the protest for questioning three times in the last 24 hours and told him to cancel the event because “there were orders that no event related to Tunisia or Egypt was allowed at this time.” Members of the Facebook page calling for the demonstration received Facebook messages late last night saying that it was canceled.
Security forces pushed the demonstrators around 300 meters away from the Egyptian embassy. At that point, a man who identified himself as a police commander said the demonstrators were in a “security area” and would have to disperse. Several women demonstrators told the police that Palestinian law required the demonstrators to notify the authorities 48 hours in advance and that they had done so. Women also convinced three policemen to release a demonstrator they had seized and dragged away when he shouted, “Long live Egypt!” The police dispersed the protest after one hour.
Human Rights Watch called on the Palestinian Authority to stop security forces’ arbitrary interference with peaceful demonstrations.
What is glaringly missing here is WHY this all started in the first place! A few weeks ago there was a suicide bombing at a Coptic Christian church which killed many innocent Christians just as the church was letting out – and Mubarak’s government (like it has done for the last thirty years) did absolutely nothing. After thirty years of quiet, the Christians finally decided that enough is enough and started to protest openly (to no avail), and now the political opposition is using the christian frustration over being murdered as they leave church each Sunday (again I reiterate that this has been going on for over thirty years) and have mobilized their followers and now are getting international attention. What will happen? Regime change. What will happen to the Coptic Christians? Nothing will change since the world now thinks that Islam has been hijacked by a few radicals but is a really neat religion. And History repeats itself all over again.
I will throw my two-cents worth in here; There are three factions in Egypt (1)Coptic Christians who are the favorite Sunday Morning target practice of Islamic snipers. (2)Islamic Brotherhood – aka brotherhood of muslims – which are those who now oppose Mubarak. (3) Muslims – or Islamics – who support and favor mubarak. Whatever happens in Egypt, the Coptic Christians lose. If Mubarak is ousted, then the Islamic Brotherhood will take over – Yep, different wolf, same sheeps clothing.
Oh, and FYI – the rest of the Islamic world blame Egypt for creating and turning the Jews loose on Planet Earth. Therefore the Egyptians will receive absolutely no help from the rest of the Islamic world.
So what will we end up with? Just the same old garbage that has been going on for thousands of years.
My solution to the problem? Nuke em all and let God sort em out, after all He created them all in the first place.
Aw, C’mon man, have a sensayumaalreddy!
That rape issue with Ayn Rand … as it turns out, I mixed the two up (Fountainhead has a much more rape-like scene; there are those who think it a rape or close enough for jazz (like me) and those who feel it isn’t rape (or rape-like) at all (obviously USW).
The sex scene(s) in Atlas Shrugged are less rape-like, no doubt. I did read both books, thought some of what she had to said was thought provoking, but ultimately saw them as bad writing with repetitive themes ad nasuea … still, like anyu review, that’s ONE person’s read (not the universe). I’m not a Rand fan (obvious enough) and her caving into the government dole (medicaid or otherwise) doesn’t make her a parasite as much as it makes her a hypocrit (sort of like both major political parties today). So it goes …
Want to read something good? Try The Finkler Question (hilarious) … I’m not finished with it yet, but will be soon.
Okay, someone explain to me how our government giving loans to these companies to keep them afloat-makes any difference if the main problem is the difference in cost-a loan is supposed to get a business started or to help it expand-not make up for a bad profit margin. Or am I just missing something.
Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China
Matthew Cavanaugh for The New York Times
Evergreen Solar plans to close its main American factory, in Devens, Mass., seen here in September, and lay off 800 workers.
By KEITH BRADSHER
Published: January 14, 2011
BEIJING — Aided by at least $43 million in assistance from the government of Massachusetts and an innovative solar energy technology, Evergreen Solar emerged in the last three years as the third-largest maker of solar panels in the United States.
But now the company is closing its main American factory, laying off the 800 workers by the end of March and shifting production to a joint venture with a Chinese company in central China. Evergreen cited the much higher government support available in China.
The factory closing in Devens, Mass., which Evergreen announced earlier this week, has set off political recriminations and finger-pointing in Massachusetts. And it comes just as President Hu Jintao of China is scheduled for a state visit next week to Washington, where the agenda is likely to include tensions between the United States and China over trade and energy policy.
The Obama administration has been investigating whether China has violated the free trade rules of the World Trade Organization with its extensive subsidies to the manufacturers of solar panels and other clean energy products.
While a few types of government subsidies are permitted under international trade agreements, they are not supposed to give special advantages to exports — something that China’s critics accuse it of doing. The Chinese government has strongly denied that any of its clean energy policies have violated W.T.O. rules.
Although solar energy still accounts for only a tiny fraction of American power production, declining prices and concerns about global warming give solar power a prominent place in United States plans for a clean energy future — even if critics say the federal government is still not doing enough to foster its adoption.
Beyond the issues of trade and jobs, solar power experts see broader implications. They say that after many years of relying on unstable governments in the Middle East for oil, the United States now looks likely to rely on China to tap energy from the sun.
Evergreen, in announcing its move to China, was unusually candid about its motives. Michael El-Hillow, the chief executive, said in a statement that his company had decided to close the Massachusetts factory in response to plunging prices for solar panels. World prices have fallen as much as two-thirds in the last three years — including a drop of 10 percent during last year’s fourth quarter alone.
Chinese manufacturers, Mr. El-Hillow said in the statement, have been able to push prices down sharply because they receive considerable help from the Chinese government and state-owned banks, and because manufacturing costs are generally lower in China.
“While the United States and other Western industrial economies are beneficiaries of rapidly declining installation costs of solar energy, we expect the United States will continue to be at a disadvantage from a manufacturing standpoint,” he said.
Even though Evergreen opened its Devens plant, with all new equipment, only in 2008, it began talks with Chinese companies in early 2009. In September 2010, the company opened its factory in Wuhan, China, and will now rely on that operation.
An Evergreen spokesman said Mr. El-Hillow was not available to comment for this article.
Other solar panel manufacturers are also struggling in the United States. Solyndra, a Silicon Valley business, received a visit from President Obama in May and a $535 million federal loan guarantee, only to say in November that it was shutting one of its two American plants and would delay expansion of the other.
First Solar, an American company, is one of the world’s largest solar power vendors. But most of its products are made overseas.
Chinese solar panel manufacturers accounted for slightly over half the world’s production last year. Their share of the American market has grown nearly sixfold in the last two years, to 23 percent in 2010 and is still rising fast, according to GTM Research, a renewable energy market analysis firm in Cambridge, Mass.
In addition to solar energy, China just passed the United States as the world’s largest builder and installer of wind turbines.
The closing of the Evergreen factory has prompted finger-pointing in Massachusetts.
Ian A. Bowles, the former energy and environment chief for Gov. Deval L. Patrick, a Democrat who pushed for the solar panel factory to be located in Massachusetts, said the federal government had not helped the American industry enough or done enough to challenge Chinese government subsidies for its industry. Evergreen has received no federal money.
“The federal government has brought a knife to a gun fight,” Mr. Bowles said. “Its support is completely out of proportion to the support displayed by China — and even to that in Europe.”
Stephanie Mueller, the Energy Department press secretary, said the department was committed to supporting renewable energy. “Through our Loan Program Office we have offered conditional commitments for loan guarantees to 16 clean energy projects totaling nearly $16.5 billion,” she said. “We have finalized and closed half of those loan guarantees, and the program has ramped up significantly over the last year to move projects through the process quickly and efficiently while protecting taxpayer interests.”
(Page 2 of 2)
Evergreen did not try to go through the long, costly process of obtaining a federal loan because of what it described last summer as signals from the department that its technology was too far along and not in need of research and development assistance. The Energy Department has a policy of not commenting on companies that do not apply.
Evergreen was selling solar panels made in Devens for $3.39 a watt at the end of 2008 and planned to cut its costs to $2 a watt by the end of last year — a target it met. But Evergreen found that by the end of the fourth quarter, it could fetch only $1.90 a watt for its Devens-made solar panels. Chinese manufacturers were selling them for as little as $1.60 a watt after reducing their costs to as little as $1.35 or less per watt.
Evergreen’s joint-venture factory in Wuhan occupies a long, warehouselike concrete building in an industrial park located in an inauspicious neighborhood. A local employee said the municipal police had used the site for mass executions into the 1980s.
When a reporter was given a rare tour inside the building just before it began mass production in September, the operation appeared as modern as any in the world. Row after row of highly automated equipment stretched toward the two-story-high ceiling in an immaculate, brightly lighted white hall. Chinese technicians closely watched the computer screens monitoring each step in the production processes.
In a telephone interview in August, Mr. El-Hillow said that he was desperate to avoid layoffs at the Devens factory. But he said Chinese state-owned banks and municipal governments were offering unbeatable assistance to Chinese solar panel companies.
Factory labor is cheap in China, where monthly wages average less than $300. That compares to a statewide average of more than $5,400 a month for Massachusetts factory workers. But labor is a tiny share of the cost of running a high-tech solar panel factory, Mr. El-Hillow said. China’s real advantage lies in the ability of solar panel companies to form partnerships with local governments and then obtain loans at very low interest rates from state-owned banks.
Evergreen, with help from its partners — the Wuhan municipal government and the Hubei provincial government — borrowed two-thirds of the cost of its Wuhan factory from two Chinese banks, at an interest rate that under certain conditions could go as low as 4.8 percent, Mr. El-Hillow said in August. Best of all, no principal payments or interest payments will be due until the end of the loan in 2015.
By contrast, a $21 million grant from Massachusetts covered 5 percent of the cost of the Devens factory, and the company had to borrow the rest from banks, Mr. El-Hillow said.
Banks in the United States were reluctant to provide the rest of the money even at double-digit interest rates, partly because of the financial crisis. “Therein lies the hidden advantage of being in China,” Mr. El-Hillow said.
Devens, as the site of a former military base, is a designated enterprise zone eligible for state financial support.
State Senator Jamie Eldridge, a Democrat whose district includes Devens, said he was initially excited for Evergreen to come to his district, but even before the announced loss of 800 jobs, he had come to oppose such large corporate assistance.
“I think there’s been a lot of hurt feelings over these subsidies to companies, while a lot of communities around the former base have not seen development money,” he said.
Michael McCarthy, a spokesman for Evergreen, said the company had already met 80 percent of the grant’s job creation target by employing up to 800 factory workers since 2008 and should owe little money to the state. Evergreen also retains about 100 research and administrative jobs in Massachusetts.
The company also received about $22 million in tax credits, and it will discuss those with Massachusetts, he said.
Evergreen has had two unique problems that made its Devens factory vulnerable to Chinese competition. It specializes in an unusual kind of wafer, making it hard to share research and development costs with other companies. And it was hurt when Lehman Brothers went bankrupt in 2008; Evergreen lost one-seventh of its outstanding shares in a complex transaction involving convertible notes. But many other Western solar power companies are also running into trouble, as competition from China coincides with uncertainty about the prices at which Western regulators will let solar farms sell electricity to national grids.
According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, shares in solar companies fell an average of 26 percent last year. Evergreen’s stock, which traded above $100 in late 2007, closed Friday in New York at $3.03.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/business/energy-environment/15solar.html?pagewanted=2
Maybe I’m nuts (don’t answer that) but perhaps it is time to revisit the issue of tariffs. Certainly there should be some fall- out for a company that takes US or State government dollars and then flees the country.
When the last decent job in this country is finally sent overseas just who will be left to afford the cheap Chinese junk we import?
States Let Private Sector Seal Deals
By CONOR DOUGHERTY
Some cash-strapped states have identified another job they want to shift to the private sector: economic development.
A number of governors are working to turn their development offices into some form of nonprofit private entity, a move that would transfer the task of giving out state grants, tax breaks and other economic incentives from the hands of government.
The idea, which has as much to do with economic philosophies as with saving money, is mainly gaining ground in states with Republican governors, including Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and Arizona.
“It’s a matter of greater flexibility and the ability to act more like a chamber [of commerce] rather than a state agency,” said Wisconsin’s new Republican governor Scott Walker, adding that private groups are better equipped to create jobs and attract companies.
As tax revenue has shriveled in recent years, cities and states have moved to privatize various operations, such as state-run liquor stores, local libraries and parking meters.
Seven states, including Michigan and Florida, already have some form of private group filling the economic-development role. Critics say handing this power to a private entity can create conflicts of interest, because the nonprofits usually have boards made up of public officials and private business leaders. This can create conflicts as these boards help steer tax breaks and incentives.
Also, in many cases private economic-development agencies aren’t subject to the same standards for public disclosure as government agencies, even though they receive government money. In Ohio, where newly elected Gov. John Kasich has proposed dissolving the state’s Department of Development and creating an entity called JobsOhio, lawmakers have pushed to increase disclosures and allow the state’s inspector general to investigate the proposed entity.
Advocates say it makes sense to separate the task of creating jobs from large government agencies that often have a broader mission. In Wisconsin, the current Department of Commerce has responsibility for regulation as well as economic development. Among the 400 employees in Ohio’s Department of Development, 60 are focused on economic development; the balance handle areas including homeless programs, community development and home energy assistance.
The structure of private economic-development groups varies, but in general they are set up as nonprofit corporations that receive seed money and regular funding infusions from the state budget but are also free to solicit donations from corporations much like a chamber of commerce. Also, instead of reporting to the governor directly, they are usually run by a board of directors. By operating outside government, private authorities can make faster decisions, says Debi Durham, who was recently hired as director of the Iowa Department of Economic Development. Under a plan expected to be proposed by Gov. Terry Branstad on Monday, that department would be dissolved into a new entity called the Iowa Partnership for Economic Progress.
Jeffrey Finkle, president of the International Economic Development Council, a trade group for economic development agencies, including some nonprofit private groups, says there has been little to show that a private structure is better than an agency under the government’s purview. “There is this naive assumption that a private-run state economic-development agency is better than a public one and I don’t see evidence that that’s true,” he says.
The move to privatize economic-development agencies started two decades ago, according to Good Jobs First, a Washington nonprofit research group that monitors how states and localities use economic incentives. Several states have seen parts of their economic development agencies go from public to private and back to public again. “One of those was Wisconsin, where the concept is now being presented as something new,” said a recent Good Jobs First report on the recent privatization trend.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704680604576110132080471742.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5
I was hoping that Texas would be different with the Super Bowl here…..But I am wrong. The prices all over the metroplex are outrageous. Triple prices and climbing. Hotels this week withing 60 miles all triple prices… entry fees for zoos and museums doubling in price…A three dollar hamburger is now 5 bucks without fries or a drink….souvenir stores at triple prices….rent cars at 400 bucks per day….tailgate parties at the stadium are going 400 bucks for a parking place just to be outside the stadium….people renting their houses for 1500 per night with some renting for 5 grand per night….scalping is not illegal in Texas and some of the prices are 400-8,000 for tickets.
I was getting really upset at the greed until I realized…..it is not the greed that I should be upset with…it is a free market price. Now I laugh at the immense throng of people STUPID enough to drop that kind of coin on a football game that you can watch in the privacy of your own home. Unbelievable.
Jerry Jones, love him or hate him, he knows how to turn a $5 bill into a $100 bill.
D13;
A fool and his money are soon parted. I will be at home or friends house and the cost of addmitance for either is a six-pack.
Go Steeleres!
CM
It is amazing…even the friggin’ Happy Meals are going up at least a $1.50 more….And the seams are already busting here. But, I will be home watching it, walking a scant 15 feet to the rest room….20 feet to the kitchen with snacks and drinks already bought….cooking some snacky things on the grill…and when the game is over…a little cleanup will be completed while people are fighting for airline seats and still in the parking lots.
I do wonder if the whole Super Bowl scene would be different if it were actually played in one of the home cities of a team in the big show. How many would flock to a Pittsburgh or Green Bay? Both are great cities no doubt – but the effect would not be as pronounced?
Great question…..I wonder. Should Super Bowls be played in one of the cities that is in it…..regardless of whether they have the infrastructure or not.
So is D13 renting out his house at free market prices? Maybe you can have a Texas bbq/tailgate party.
Hard to follow things with no numbering……or outlining
Indeed. I’m feeling disoriented.
But then, I’m a liberal, so this is nothing new for me.
Amen men to that…. I mean…. what do you mean Mathius? Liberals are brilliant. Keith Olbermann told me so.
Well.. if Keith said so, who am I to argue?
I guess I’m brilliant then.
Because what I really needed was a bigger ego
I have to say, though I find it tough to keep track of the threads, I do like the recent posters thing at the top. And as long as you keep the color scheme neutral enough that I can read/write at work without attracting attention, I’m a happy camper.
PS: How goes the recovery?
Agreed Ray. That is a wordpress thing. I was reading on their forums and found that they are eliminating the numbering of comments on nearly all their themes. There were some pretty upset bloggers on there complaining about it.
IT is part of the reason I am considering the move to wordpress.org where I pay for server space somewhere. I would be able to put the numbered comments back in. We will see soon!
Good Morning All
Tax dollars at work:
The American Government funded a study to see why the head of a man’s penis was larger than the shaft. After 1 year and $180,000, they concluded that the reason that the head was larger than the shaft was to give the man more pleasure during sex.
After the US published the study, the French decided to do they’re own study. After $250,000 and 3 years of research, they concluded that the reason the head was larger than the shaft was to give the woman
more pleasure during sex.
Newfoundlanders, unsatisfied with these findings, conducted their own study. After 2 weeks, a cost of around $75.46, and 2 cases of beer they concluded that it was to keep a man’s hand from flying off and hitting himself in the forehead!
HEHE, Happy Monday!
Thanks G-Man – just shot a mouthful of coffee out my nose and onto my monitor….
Your welcome Ray, Hope that foot is healing fast, looks like we got another storm heading our way, should be fun!
I see that it is not only Canadians that make fun of our Newfies!
Correction though…the $75.46 was the price of the 2 cases of beer.
DCU
New Rule: Americans Must Realize What Makes NFL Football So Great: Socialism
by Bill Maher
New Rule: With the Super Bowl only a week away, Americans must realize what makes NFL football so great: socialism. That’s right, for all the F-15 flyovers and flag waving, football is our most successful sport because the NFL takes money from the rich teams and gives it to the poor teams… just like President Obama wants to do with his secret army of ACORN volunteers. Green Bay, Wisconsin has a population of 100,000. Yet this sleepy little town on the banks of the Fuck-if-I-know River has just as much of a chance of making it to the Super Bowl as the New York Jets – who next year need to just shut the hell up and play.
Now, me personally, I haven’t watched a Super Bowl since 2004, when Janet Jackson’s nipple popped out during half time, and that split-second glimpse of an unrestrained black titty burned my eyes and offended me as a Christian. But I get it – who doesn’t love the spectacle of juiced-up millionaires giving each other brain damage on a giant flat-screen TV with a picture so realistic it feels like Ben Roethlisberger is in your living room, grabbing your sister?
It’s no surprise that some 100 million Americans will watch the Super Bowl next week – that’s 40 million more than go to church on Christmas – suck on that, Jesus! It’s also 85 million more than watched the last game of the World Series, and in that is an economic lesson for America. Because football is built on an economic model of fairness and opportunity, and baseball is built on a model where the rich almost always win and the poor usually have no chance. The World Series is like Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. You have to be a rich bitch just to play. The Super Bowl is like Tila Tequila. Anyone can get in.
Or to put it another way, football is more like the Democratic philosophy. Democrats don’t want to eliminate capitalism or competition, but they’d like it if some kids didn’t have to go to a crummy school in a rotten neighborhood while others get to go to a great school and their Dad gets them into Harvard. Because when that happens “achieving the American dream” is easy for some, and just a fantasy for others.
That’s why the NFL runs itself in a way that would fit nicely on Glenn Beck’s chalkboard – they literally share the wealth, through salary caps and revenue sharing – TV is their biggest source of revenue, and they put all of it in a big commie pot and split it 32 ways. Because they don’t want anyone to fall too far behind. That’s why the team that wins the Super Bowl picks last in the next draft. Or what the Republicans would call “punishing success.”
Baseball, on the other hand, is exactly like the Republicans, and I don’t just mean it’s incredibly boring. I mean their economic theory is every man for himself. The small market Pittsburgh Steelers go to the Super Bowl more than anybody – but the Pittsburgh Pirates? Levi Johnston has sperm that will not grow up and live long enough to see the Pirates in a World Series. Their payroll is about $40 million, and the Yankees is $206 million. They have about as much chance at getting in the playoffs as a poor black teenager from Newark has of becoming the CEO of Halliburton. That’s why people stop going to Pirate games in May, because if you’re not in the game, you become indifferent to the fate of the game, and maybe even get bitter – that’s what’s happening to the middle class in America. It’s also how Marie Antoinette lost her head.
So, you kind of have to laugh – the same angry white males who hate Obama because he’s “redistributing wealth” just love football, a sport that succeeds economically because it does exactly that. To them, the NFL is as American as hot dogs, Chevrolet, apple pie, and a second, giant helping of apple pie. But then again, they think they’re macho because their sport is football, when honestly – is there anything gayer than wearing another man’s shirt?
Of course – teams still have to draft and coach and play and………
……and it hasn’t helped perennial losers like Buffalo…
or Oakland
or Seattle
or Cleveland
Or Detroit
CM
or Cincinnati, now taking offers for Carson ..
Suck it Bill Maher. Explain the Minnesota Twins. I absolutely hate this article because he makes a BS causal relationship. The NFL, NHL and NBA are more competitive and have more parity because they have salary caps in place to limit how much is spent. Not to mention that the spread the wealth mentality is far more alive in Major League Baseball than any other major sport. Revenue sharing takes money from the haves and gives it to the have nots. Hence last week’s comment from the Yankees President that the Rangers need to get off “baseball welfare”.
Thanks for posting this Ray. I know he is a comedian and I should not even bother attempting to point out all the blatant flaws in his madness. However the reality is that he has a tremendous amount of influence. Just like what happens with Beck, Limbaugh, Olbermann, etc., the masses who don’t know any better will actually believe that Maher is correct in this comparison and thus socialism is the better way to go.
Personally, I find Maher sometimes mildly funny, most of the time irritating and extremely disrespectful of other points of view.
USW
Is this why LA can’t hold onto a team?
The Pittsburgh Pirates are a bad example. The ownership of the Pirates banks the revenue sharing money (tens of millions per year) and they are not forced to spend it.
Now Pittsburgh sports fans are extremely loyal. When the Penguins started winning again, bam, there are all the fans getting interested again. Call them bandwagoners if you will but if you ask any random Pittsburgher if you support the home town they will reply “yes”, ask them about the Steelers, “yes”, ask them about the penguins, “yes”, ask them about the pirates, long pause, look over shoulder, whisper, “yes”.
The amazing part is that the Pirates management know this. They know if by some random chance that the Pirates have a good season, they will get millions more fans interested again. But why do that if they make money when they don’t win? (that to me sounds like a liberal entitlement attitude, not the republican bill maher example)
Ohh! Wonder how this is gonna turn out. Are we gonna make her go back-will she insist on going back because of the other two they are holding. This is bad!
Iran summons American woman for Feb. 6 trial
Email this Story
Jan 31, 8:51 AM (ET)
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) – Iran says it has summoned an American woman to return to the country and stand trial on Feb. 6 along with two other Americans who are still in custody. The three are accused of spying.
The Americans were arrested on July 31, 2009, after crossing the border from northern Iraq’s scenic Kurdish region, where their families say they were vacationing and hiking.
Since her release on bail in September, Sarah Shourd has said they did not intentionally cross the unmarked border. She returned to the United States after 14 months in a Tehran jail.
Judiciary spokesman Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejehi says a Revolutionary Court in Tehran has summoned Shourd to return and stand trial.
Her fiance, Shane Bauer, and their friend Josh Fattal remain in prison in Iran.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110131/D9L3BST01.html
No. The US will not forcibly extradite her to Iran. We have no standing extradition treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties).
However, if she decides to go back to stand trial, as you suggest, because her friends are there, I see no reason the US would stop her.
…
But I do have a question.. who goes to the Iranian border to “vacation” and “hike”? People go to do aid work, humanitarian efforts, sometimes they’re archeologists, etc.. but to vacation? I think not. Without knowing anything else, my gut reaction is that there is a better than even chance that they were cia spies who intentionally and knowingly crossed the border and were caught red-handed. We’ll probably never know for sure.
…
But odds are also very good that they would never get a fair trial in Iran. Guilty or innocent, Iran needs the US. They need us the same way that the USSR needed us. They need to hold up the US as the big scary bogey man who is out to destroy them. They need to “prove” that we’re actively working against them and that we are responsible for their shitty living conditions (as opposed to the Iranian leaders). External threat = unified people, little dissent, blind obedience, maintenance of the status quo. No external threat means they have to explain why people are living in the 14th century in the year 2011.
I’m thinking that we agreed to send her back for trial when they agreed to release her. Which could…, no probably not, I wouldn’t want to be the President that forcibly sent an American woman back to Iran. You may be right-that they went into Iran on purpose but then again-I remember reading somewhere that Iraq was becoming a tourist attraction.
I also have to wonder-The Iranians who protested awhile back-practically begged us to help them-not sure what they thought we could do-but if any of them liked us before-I doubt they do now.
how can our president have an open dialogue if he doesn’t send the accused spy back?
This makes some interesting points and gives some new information.
Egypt crisis worst disaster since Iran’s revolution
By BARRY RUBIN
01/31/2011 03:23
Analysis: Without learning lessons from past, Obama gambles that anti-American Islamist government allied with Iran won’t emerge from the chaos.
Talkbacks (7)
When polled recently, 59% of Egyptians said they backed the Islamists and only 27% favored modernizers. There is no good policy for the United States regarding the uprising in Egypt but the Obama administration may be adopting something close to the worst option.
This is its first real international crisis. And it seems to be adopting a policy that, while somewhat balanced, is pushing the Egyptian regime out of power. The situation could not be more dangerous and might be the biggest disaster for the region and Western interests since the Iranian revolution three decades ago.
RELATED:
Analysis: Egyptian chaos and the Palestinian question
Background: Who are the Muslim Brothers?
If Brotherhood takes over, IDF will face formidable enemy
Experts and news media seem to be overwhelmingly optimistic, just as they generally were in Iran’s case. Wishful thinking is to some extent replacing serious analysis. Indeed, the alternative outcome is barely presented: This could lead to an Islamist Egypt – if not now, then in several years.
What’s puzzling here is that a lot of the enthusiasm is based on points like saying that the demonstrators are leaderless and spontaneous. But that’s precisely the situation where someone who does have leaders, is well organized, and knows precisely what they want takes over.
Look at Tunisia. The elite stepped in with the support of the army and put in a coalition of leadership, including both old elements and oppositionists. We don’t know what will happen but there is a reasonable hope of stability and democracy. This is not the situation in Egypt where the elite seems to have lost confidence and the army seems passive.
Can Omar Suleiman, long-time head of intelligence, as vice-president and former Air Force chief (the job Mubarak himself used to have) Ahmed Shafiq as prime minister stabilize the situation? Perhaps. He is an able man. But to have the man who has organized repression running the country is not exactly a step toward libertarian democracy.
There are two basic possibilities: the regime will stabilize (with or without Mubarak) or power will be up for grabs.
Now, here are the precedents for the latter situation: Remember the Iranian revolution when all sorts of people poured out into the streets to demand freedom? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is now president.
Remember the Beirut spring when people poured out into the streets to demand freedom? Hizbullah is now running Lebanon.
Remember the democracy among the Palestinians and free elections? Hamas is now running the Gaza Strip.
Remember democracy in Algeria? Tens of thousands of people were killed in the ensuing civil war.
It doesn’t have to be that way but the precedents are pretty daunting.
What did Egyptians tell the Pew poll recently when asked whether they liked “modernizers” or “Islamists”? Islamists: 59%; Modernizers: 27%. Now maybe they will vote for a Westernized guy in a suit who promises a liberal democracy but do you want to bet the Middle East on it? Here’s the problem.
On one hand, everyone knows that President Hosni Mubarak’s government, based on the regime that has been running Egypt since the morning of July 23, 1952, is a dictatorship with a great deal of corruption and repression.
This Egyptian government has generally been a good ally of the United States, yet has let Washington down at times. For example, the Mubarak government has continued to purvey anti-American propaganda to its people; held back on solving the Israel-Palestinian conflict (it did not endorse the 2000 Clinton plan, though I have good sources saying Mubarak said later he regretted that decision); has not taken a strong public stance on pressuring Iran; and so on.
For a long time, it was said that Egypt was the most important US ally in the Arabic-speaking world. There is truth in this but it has been less true lately, though due more to passivity in foreign policy than to hostility.
Clearly, though, Egypt is an American ally generally, and its loss to an anti-American government would be a tremendous defeat for the United States. Moreover, a populist and radical nationalist – much less an Islamist – government could reignite the Arab-Israel conflict and cost tens of thousands of lives.
The US’s gamble
So the United States has a stake in the survival of the regime, if not so much that of Mubarak personally or the succession of his son, Gamal. This means that US policy should put an emphasis on the regime’s survival.
The regime might be better off without the Mubaraks, since it can argue it is making a fresh start and will gain political capital from getting rid of the hated dictator.
Given the weakness of designated successor, Gamal Mubarak, who is probably too weak to deal with the situation, the regime might well be a lot better off.
On the other hand, the United States wants to show that it supports reform and democracy, believing that this will make it more popular among the masses in the Arab world as well as being the “right” and “American” thing to do. Also, if the revolution does win, the thought is, it is more likely to be friendly to America if the United States shows in advance its support for change.
Finally, the “pro-democracy” approach is based on the belief that Egypt might well produce a moderate, democratic, pro-Western state that will then be more able to resist an Islamist challenge. Perhaps the Islamists can be incorporated into this system.
Perhaps, some say (and it is a very loud voice in the American mass media) that the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t really a threat at all.
So, in this point of view, US policy should favor the forces of change.
Of course, it is possible to mix these two positions and that is what President Obama is trying to do.
Thus, Obama said, “I’ve always said to [Mubarak] that making sure that they are moving forward on reform – political reform, economic reform – is absolutely critical to the long-term well-being of Egypt, and you can see these pent-up frustrations that are being displayed on the streets…
Violence is not the answer in solving these problems in Egypt, so the government has to be careful about not resorting to violence and the people on the streets have to be careful about not resorting to violence. I think that it is very important that people have mechanisms in order to express legitimate grievances. As I said in my State of the Union speech, there’s certain core values that we believe in as Americans that we believe are universal: freedom of speech, freedom of expression – people being able to use social networking or any other mechanisms to communicate with each other and express their concerns.”
On paper, this is an ideal policy: Mubarak should reform; the opposition should not use violence; and everything will turn out all right. Again, this is the perfect policy in theory, and I’m not being sarcastic at all here.
Unfortunately, it has little to do with reality.
For if the regime does what Obama wants it to do, it will fall. And what is going to replace it? And by his lack of support – his language goes further than it might have done – the president is demoralizing an ally.
And it is all very well to believe idealistically that even if Egyptians are longing to be free, one has to define what “free” means to them. Also, the ruler who emerges is likely to be from the best organized, disciplined group. People in Russia in 1917 were yearning to be free also and they got the Bolsheviks.
In Iran, where people are yearning to be free, the Obama administration did nothing.
No matter what the United States says or does at this point, it is not going to reap the gratitude of millions of Egyptians as a liberator. For the new anti-regime leaders will blame America for its past support of Mubarak, opposition to Islamism, backing of Israel, cultural influence, incidents of alleged imperialism, and for not being Muslim.
If anyone thinks the only problem is Israel, they understand nothing.
This is not the first time this kind of problem has come up and it is revealing and amazing that the precedents are not being fully explained. The most obvious is Iran in 1978-1979. At that time, as I wrote in my book Paved with Good Intentions: The American Experience and Iran, the US strategy was to do precisely what Obama is doing now: announce support for the government but press it to make reforms. The shah did not go to repression partly because he didn’t have US support. The revolution built up and the regime fell. The result wasn’t too good.
Click here for full Jpost coverage of unrest in Egypt
There is a second part of this story also.
Experts on television and consulting with the government assured everyone that the revolution would be moderate, the Islamists couldn’t win, and even if they did, this new leadership could be dealt with. So either Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini couldn’t triumph – Islamists running a country, what a laugh! – or he couldn’t really mean what he said. That didn’t turn out too well either.
Even more forgotten is that, regarding Egypt, that’s how the whole thing started! Back in 1952, as I wrote in my book, The Arab States and the Palestine Conflict, US policymakers supported – don’t exaggerate this, it was not a US-engineered coup but they were favorable – to an army takeover.
The idea was that the officers would be friendly to the United States, hostile to the USSR and communism, and more likely to enjoy mass support.
In other words, policymakers and experts are endorsing a strategy today that has led to two of the biggest disasters in the history of US Middle East policy. And now it is even worse, since we have these precedents and particularly the point about what happens when Islamists take power.
There is no organized moderate group in Egypt. Even the most important past such organization, the Kifaya movement, has already been taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood. Since 2007, its leader has been Abdel Wahhab al-Messiri, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a virulent anti-Semite.
Muhammad ElBaradei, leader of the reformist movement, makes the following argument against my analysis: “Mubarak has convinced the United States and Europe that they only have a choice between two options – either they accept this authoritarian regime, or Egypt will fall into the hands of the likes of bin Laden’s al-Qaida. Of course, that is not exactly true. Mubarak uses the specter of Islamist terror to prevent a third way: the country’s democratization. But Washington needs to know that the support of a repressive leadership only creates the appearance of stability.
In truth, it promotes the radicalization of the people.”
This is a reasonable formulation. But one might also say that nothing would promote the radicalization of the people more than having a radical regime. Even ElBaradei says that if he were to be president, he would recognize Hamas as ruler of the Gaza Strip and end all sanctions against it.
That is not to say that there aren’t good, moderate, pro-democratic people in Egypt but they have little power, money, or organization. Indeed, Egypt is the only Arab country where many of the reformers went over to the Islamists believing – I think quite wrongly – that they could control the Islamists and dominate them once the alliance got into power.
Nothing would make me happier than to say that the United States should give full support for reform, to cheer on the insurgents without reservation. But unfortunately, that is neither the most honest analysis nor the one required by US interests. In my book, The Long War for Freedom, I expressed my strong sympathy for the liberal reformers but also the many reasons why they are unlikely to win and cannot compete very well with the Islamists.
I have pointed out that the Brotherhood’s new leader sounds quite like al- Qaida and has called for war on both Israel and America.
And here is Rajab Hilal Hamida, a member of the Brotherhood in Egypt’s parliament, who proves that you don’t have to be moderate to run in elections: “From my point of view, bin Ladin, al-Zawahiri and al-Zarqawi are not terrorists in the sense accepted by some. I support all their activities, since they are a thorn in the side of the Americans and the Zionists… [On the other hand,] he who kills Muslim citizens is neither a jihad fighter nor a terrorist, but a criminal murderer. We must call things by their proper names!” A study of the Brotherhood members of Egypt’s parliament shows how radical they have been in their speeches and proposals.
They want an Islamist radical state, ruled by Shari’a and at war with Israel and the United States.
Then it is also being said that the Brotherhood is not so popular in Egypt. Then why did they get 20 percent of the vote in an election when they were repressed and cheated? This was not just some protest vote because voters had the option of voting for secular reformers and very few of them did.
The mass media is full of “experts” who also argue that the Brotherhood is not involved in terrorism. Well, partly true. It supports terrorism against Americans in Iraq and against Israelis, especially backing Hamas. In major cases of terrorism in Egypt – for example the assassination of Farag Fouda and the attempting killing of Naguib Mahfouz – Brotherhood clerics were involved in inciting the violence beforehand and applauding it afterward.
The deeper question is: why does the Brotherhood not engage in violence in Egypt? The answer is not that it is moderate but that it has felt the time was not ripe. Knowing that it would be crushed by the government, and its leaders sent to concentration camps and tortured or even executed, as happened under Gamal Abdel Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s, is a deterrent. It is no accident that Hamas and Hizbullah – unrestrained by weak governments – engaged in violent terrorism while the Muslim Brotherhood, facing strong and determined regimes in Egypt and Jordan, did not.
Having said all of this, US influence on these events, already rejected by Egypt’s government, is minimal. It is morally good to speak about freedom and seem to support the protesters but also quite dangerous and will not reap the gratitude of the Egyptian masses in the future. After all, aside from the likely radicalism of their leaders, a revolutionary regime would be hostile toward the United States since America would be blamed for supporting the Egyptian dictatorship for decades. President Obama will not charm them into moderation.
The Egyptian elite wants to save itself and if they have to dump Mubarak to do so – as we saw in Tunisia – the armed forces and the rest will do so. But if the regime itself falls, creating a vacuum, that is going to be a very bad outcome. If I believed that something better could emerge that would be stable and greatly benefit Egyptians, I’d be for that.
Yet is that really the case? Consider this point: Egypt’s resources and capital are limited. There aren’t enough jobs or land or wealth. How would a new regime deal with these problems and mobilize popular support? One route would be to embark on a decades-long development program to make the desert green, etc. Yet with so much competition, where would the money come from? How could Egypt try to gain markets already held by China, for example? More likely is that a government would win support through demagoguery: blame America, blame the West, blame Israel, and proclaim that Islam is the answer. That’s how it has been in the Middle East in too many places. In two cases – Lebanon and the Gaza Strip – democracy (though other factors were also involved) has produced anti-democratic Islamist regimes that endorse terrorism and are allied to Iran and Syria.
Is America ready to bet that Egypt will be different? And on what evidentiary basis would that be done? The emphasis for US policy, then, should be put on supporting the Egyptian regime generally, whatever rhetoric is made about reforms. The rulers in Cairo should have no doubt that the United States is behind them.
If it is necessary to change leadership or make concessions, that is something the US government can encourage behind the scenes.
But Obama’s rhetoric – the exact opposite of what it was during the upheavals in Iran which he should have supported – seems dangerously reminiscent of President Jimmy Carter in 1978 regarding Iran.
He has made it sound – by wording and nuance, if not by intention – that Washington no longer backs the Egyptian government.
And that government has even said so publicly.
Without the confidence to resist this upheaval, the Egyptian system could collapse, leaving a vacuum that is not going to be filled by friendly leaders.
That is potentially disastrous for the United States and the Middle East. There will be many who will say that an anti-American Islamist government allied with Iran and ready to restart war with Israel “cannot” emerge. That’s a pretty big risk to take on the word of those who have been so often wrong in the past.
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=205962&R=R3
Republican lawmakers begin assault on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
By Amanda Carey – The Daily Caller | Published: 12:59 AM
WASHINGTON – JUNE 15: House Finance Committee chair Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) listens to debate during the House-Senate Conference Committee meeting on H.R.4173, the “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” June 15, 2010 in Washington, DC. Members of the House and Senate are working to reach a compromise on financial reform legislation that passed their respective legislative bodies.
Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill are planning to hold a hearing on February 9 to begin tackling reform of government sponsored enterprises (GSE) like mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The hearing will be the first in a long series of investigations by Republicans to fix what is viewed as one of the main causes of the 2008 financial crisis.
The first hearing will be held by the Financial Services subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises. The focus of the hearing and the ones that follow it will be stopping taxpayer losses on housing in the short term, preventing future bailouts and removing government from the housing markets all together.
Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, said in a statement announcing the hearings, “The Committee will be busy this year addressing the issues of concern to Americans: jobs, economic activity, Fannie and Freddie reform, and implementation of Dodd-Frank.”
“We will work to ensure that taxpayers are protected,” he added.
Reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is shaping up to be a primary area of concern for the GOP as Republican lawmakers figure out how to address the two financial institutions that were left out of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform and Consumer Protection Act that was passed last summer.
But Republicans are eying the financial overhaul bill as well.
The announcement of the hearings also comes on the heals of a letter Bachus and Republican Rep. Randy Neugebauer of Texas, chairman of the Financial Services subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, sent to nine federal agencies asking them to provide information on how much implementing the financial reform law will cost.
Those nine agencies — including the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission — were all charged with producing rules and regulations to implement the law.
The letter points out that the Dodd-Frank Act requires 11 agencies to create, among other things, 243 rules of compliance, 59 studies, and 22 new annual reports.
“It is our responsibility to ensure that mandates are not overly burdensome or wasteful of taxpayer,” said the letter.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/31/republican-lawmakers-begin-assault-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac/#ixzz1CdKTUoTP
” The letter points out that the Dodd-Frank Act requires 11 agencies to create, among other things, 243 rules of compliance, 59 studies, and 22 new annual reports.
“It is our responsibility to ensure that mandates are not overly burdensome or wasteful of taxpayer,” said the letter. ”
This certainly creates a conundrum
Q. Can the Egyptian people overthrow their government w/o a “2nd amendment solution”?
Why or why not?
Sure……..with the help of a 2nd Amendment ally.
And whom is this ally sir?
THinking…..thinking……thinking…..does not compute.
Maybe if they had gun rights to begin with, an overthrow would not be necessary.
@G-Man – would they need “more guns” than that of whom they propose to overthrow?
Well, when their Army showed up, the brutal cops split. The fighting mostly ended. Many more and much bigger guns = mission accomplished (at least most of the violence ended).
What would happen here do you think?
Good question. With many parts of our inner cities already warzones, if hunger were an issue, it could get very ugly in the urban areas. The cops would get their asses kicked until the National Guard showed up, which could also be ugly, but short lived from that point. If the Rodney King event is of any use, imagine 5+ million thoughout the urban areas going at it. Wish I could see the future, but unaffordable food would cause major problems. If that were to happen, maybe them FEMA camps that don’t exist might be a reality after all!
It would be chaos as the population would not fight against the police or the NAtional Guard…they would turn upon themselves.
I think they can overthrow the government so long as there is wide spread support of the people. Especially with support of the military.
As for this country, I still believe a massive well orchestrated, Peaceful Constitutionally protected march on Washington, could go a long way toward getting our politicians to stop infringing on our freedoms, especially if done not long before an election. The same could be done later at the State houses.
That worked real swell for the WWI vets.
Very good question-There is no doubt that the military(not the government) is stronger than any “we the people uprisings” guns or not. So guns probably in this situation would just cause alot more blood to be spilled-but on the other hand if the people had always had guns -the government being just as aware as the citizens of the danger-just might curb their actions in hopes of not causing one.
Maybe.
Popularity goes a long way. The current global culture would put a LOT of pressure on any government using violence against non-violent resistance. That is no guarantee, but it helps. It is also possible that said support would not exist in the case of armed revolt. So can they? Maybe.
Could they with one? Maybe. More bloodshed, but possibly faster results. It might stop the brutal cops without military support. Currently the military is the reason it remains peaceful. If they were not in it or were on the cps’ side, it would be very bad without a right to arms. Worse than without it for sure.
Conspitacy theorists UNITE.
Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt……Muslim Brotherhood already now members of Tunisia and Temen Parlaments…..poised to go into Egypt.
Muslim Brotherhood receives all funding from Iran….who condems the use of police in Egypt while using their police to quell, kill, and murder their own opposition.
Conspiracy? Coincidence?
There are no coincidences.. you know, except when there are.
That was either very zen or very stupid. If it came off as zen, it probably was entirely coincidental.
I’d call it taking advantage of the situation. Egypt doesn’t seem to be a religious takeover, just hungry people tired of getting their asses kicked by the cops.
Awwwww…c’mon G…..Conspiracy theory…not truth.
Subject: THE MARINE
On their 50th anniversary, a wife found the negligee she wore on her
wedding night and put it on.
She went to her husband, a retired MARINE and asked, “Honey, do you
remember this?”
He looked up from his newspaper and said “Yes dear, I do.
You wore that same negligee the night we were married.”
She said, “Yes, that’s right. Do you remember what you said to me that
night?”
He nodded and said “Yes dear, I said, Oh baby, I’m going to suck the life
out of those boobs and screw your brains out.”
She giggled and said “That’s exactly what you said. So now it’s fifty years later,
and I’m in the same negligee.
What do you have to say tonight?”
He looked her up and down and said, ” Mission Accomplished.”
I’d like to hear the “rest of the story”. I’m thinking a frying pan upside the head seems appropriate. And for some odd reason the name Bobbit keeps coming to mind.
I see a difference, at least historically, China has proven it’s self more than willing to openly kill it’s people in large numbers to stop an insurrection.
Gordon G. Chang
New Asia
Egypt Is the Next Tunisia. What Is the Next Egypt?
Jan. 30 2011 – 8:26 pm | 15,872 views | 0 recommendations | 33 comments
By GORDON G. CHANG
“The new wave of color revolutions has broken through Tunisia and swept into Egypt this year,” states The Global Times, a Chinese Communist Party newspaper, in an editorial released today. “Western-style democracy appears to be spreading, yet the affected countries are not comparable with Western society—these new revolutions are more controversial than those that happened in East Europe after the Cold War.”
Now that Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution has inspired Egyptians, autocrats in the region nervously watch for signs of unrest in their own countries. Most observers assume that the next Egypt is Yemen, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia. Yet as the Global Times editorial indicates, Middle Eastern despots are not the only ones worried. Beijing’s leaders are concerned that 1.3 billion enraged souls will rise up and tear down the People’s Republic of China.
China’s communists have every right to be concerned. In a world connected by optic fiber, revolutionary fervor not only crosses from one country to the next but from one continent to another. That is undoubtedly the reason why Chinese netizens cannot search the characters for “Egypt” on some Mainland sites and the authorities are censoring news of the distant upheaval. Beijing’s officials know that every resentment felt by Tunisians and Egyptians is shared by those they rule.
So it’s not surprising the Chinese are closely watching the streets of Cairo and Alexandria. China’s netizens, for example, cannot stop talking about the lone Egyptian who stood in front of an armored car last week. “Must see!” Tweeted human rights lawyer Teng Bao yesterday. “Egypt’s Tiananmen movement, a warrior blocks a military vehicle!”
Is there a connection between the events in North Africa and Asia? Like the Tunisians and Egyptians, the Chinese are losing their fear of dictators. “Many people on the Chinese blogosphere and netizens believe that the future road that China takes is like Tunisia,” remarked Chinese blogger “Twokeqi,” in a session arranged by the American embassy in Beijing. He and other Chinese netizens were peppering two American officials—Jeffrey Bader and Ben Rhodes—who were connected by a video link as they sat in the White House basement. “Does the U.S. government also think so and does the U.S. government have a strategy if this happens?”
Neither Bader nor Rhodes would answer either of Twokeqi’s direct questions. Rhodes, for his part, rambled on about Washington’s human rights policies and Bader talked about the American civil war and slavery in the South, so it is obvious that the pair were afraid of offending Beijing’s officials. Yet China’s citizens—or at least some of them—are not so concerned about the tender feelings of the Communist Party elite.
That’s a dangerous moment for autocrats, even if they dwell thousands of miles from the pyramids. When a people begin to ignore authoritarians, political transformations occur. The Chinese, for instance, don’t take to the streets when they are angry notes New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. They do so when they think they can get away with it. “China has always operated to some degree on fear, and that fear is now eroding,” he wrote in 2003.
Since 2003, the year after Hu Jintao became China’s supremo, Beijing’s top leaders have done their best to make their political system more repressive, but they are nonetheless losing their ability to intimidate. As a result, Chinese bloggers, like Twokeqi, are willing to say and write some of the most subversive things. Twokeqi, for instance, need not call for multi-party elections or even freedom of speech to undermine the state. All he needs to do is to point to events in North Africa and declare those trends will one day affect China.
Societies change—or “tip” to use a phrase popularized by Malcolm Gladwell—because, at some point, enough people think the same way. At this point, not everyone believes they can send Hu Jintao packing, like the Tunisians did with Ben Ali. Authoritarian governments, as we know by now, always look invincible until a week before their leaders leave for the airport.
But Beijing’s lame attempts to suppress “Egypt” on the net—and the admission that “democracy” is spreading—make Chinese officials look fearful as well as inept. Because they are also making themselves appear obtuse and desperate, they are opening the door to “discontinuous political change” in the year that will mark the centennial of the first Chinese revolution in history.
Twice in their past—in 1911 and 1949—China’s people opted for radical political change. After the unexpected events in Tunisia and Egypt—and after more than sixty years of Communist Party misrule at home—we could see the third Chinese revolution this year.
http://blogs.forbes.com/gordonchang/2011/01/30/egypt-is-the-next-tunisia-what-is-the-next-egypt/
Judge rules Obamacare UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
A U.S. district judge ruled Monday that the health care law unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause
Judge Roger Vinson said as a result of the unconstitutionality of the “individual mandate” that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be thrown out.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/31/judges-ruling-health-care-lawsuit-shift-momentum-coverage-debate/
Given the context of Obama Care……and individual mandates and the commerce clause…I think the Judge is correct…..but ya ta hey… I am not a lawyer.
The Judge is/was a lawyer, and not even all lawyers agree on this. Just ask Buck.
Yup, not all lawyers agree.
Most seem to agree that the mandate is constitutional. I say ‘most’ from the fact that several judges have dismissed such suits and constitutional legal scholars have come out in support of the mandate as being a constitutional exercise of congressional authority.
Haven’t read the full opinion yet though.
I like these snippets >
“While the individual mandate was clearly ‘necessary and essential’ to the act as drafted, it is not ‘necessary and essential’ to health care reform in general,” he continued. “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void.”
In other cases, a federal district judge in Richmond, Va., ruled the individual mandate is unconstitutional but left standing other parts of the law. In Michigan, the argument concerning the “individual mandate” — the central tenet that requires Americans to start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty — was thrown out by another federal judge.
“That judge, under his mind-set, said basically if someone thought that I were overweight, if they rule this way, the federal government would be able to mandate that I go down to the Gold’s Gym and fill out an application and contract with Gold’s Gym to lose weight and lower my cholesterol,” said South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, whose state is among the parties filing the multi-state suit. “That is the kind of logic that we’re going to right now where you’re actually telling people that they have to engage in an activity and that is simply too broad a policy for the federal government.”
Amen!!!!!!!!!
“While the individual mandate was clearly ‘necessary and essential’ to the act as drafted, it is not ‘necessary and essential’ to health care reform in general,” he continued. “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void.”
Is that what the judge said in this case? Wow, way to throw out two centuries worth of legal precedent on the ‘necessary and proper’ clause…
The mandate doesn’t need to be ‘necessary’ to health care reform. It only has to be a reasonable means of achieving a constitutional end – namely in this case the regulation of interstate commerce.
On the issue of severability this is also completely wrong. A law does not require a severability provision to save it from the attack on a specific provision. Courts routinely strike down portions of laws, while leaving the rest in tact, even absent a severability provision.
“namely in this case the regulation of interstate commerce”
Mandating that an idividual engage in any form of interstate commerce is not “regulating”
You’re misreading it though. It does not matter whether or not mandating an individual to purchase insurance is akin to regulating interstate commerce. The issue is whether mandating an individual to purchase insurance is a ‘necessary and proper’ means of regulating interstate commerce.
Ok Buck, I sort of see now what you are saying, but I think it just plain wrong, keeping in the spirit of the original Constitution, and I still see it more G-man’s way.
Fair enough, but the jurisprudence on ‘necessary and proper’ has been pretty well established since 1818.
damn precedence!
Buck, Congress can’t violate one part of the Constitution to make anther correct. I’m not arguing that they can regulate the Health insurance industry, but that mandating people to purchase a product that is being mandated, because they think it’s necessary and proper, is above and way beyond their authority. If the claim is that the Feds can’t regulate health insurance or the health industry as a whole, without the mandate, deeming it as necessary and proper, then maybe the Feds should leave it the hell alone, cuz it damn sure ain’t proper.
“it damn sure ain’t proper.”
We have a winner!
What specific constitutional provision is being violated?
If you aren’t arguing that they can regulate the health insurance industry, then the ‘necessary and proper’ clause would enable Congress to do anything that is reasonably related to regulating the health insurance industry.
“would enable Congress to do anything that is reasonably related to regulating the health insurance industry.”
Negative my lawyer friend. The Constitutions was written to “limit the power of Government”. Not to grant it overreaching power over the citizens in any circumstance they deem necessary and proper. Your trying to rewrite the document, and give it a different meaning than it was originally intended. I throw the BS flag!
Nope sorry – this is from the Founders (or at least some surviving Founders). Not all were still around in 1819.
From the 1819 McCulloch decision (thought it was 1818, oh well):
“[A] criterion of what is constitutional, and of what is not so … is the end, to which the measure relates as a mean. If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority.”
History: Mary had a little lamb, his fleece was white as snow!
Buck the Wala: Mary had a little lamb, and his fleece was bleached.
From the 1819 McCulloch decision.
The court determined that Congress had the power to charter the bank. It’s about a US bank being taxed by the State of Maryland. It’s not about the Feds mandating the the people use the bank. Nice try, next!
Just the wording of your argument should make warning bells go off-” would enable Congress to do anything” that is reasonably related to regulating the health insurance industry.” Please define reasonably
That’s correct, but besides the point.
The quote in question is how SCOTUS defined the ‘necessary and proper’ clause.
I’ll give you kudos for the attempt though!
Decided to join in VH!?
Reasonably in constitutional parlance is admittedly a pretty low threshold. But that’s just how the cookie crumbles.
The Constitution may be designed to limit the Federal Gov’t. But when it comes to an area in which the Fed Govt has authority, its authority over that arena is pretty broad.
This principle had been established many years earlier by Alexander Hamilton:[1]
“ [A] criterion of what is constitutional, and of what is not so … is the end, to which the measure relates as a mean. If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority. There is also this further criterion which may materially assist the decision: Does the proposed measure abridge a pre-existing right of any State, or of any individual? If it does not, there is a strong presumption in favour of its constitutionality….
Buck, you missed the last two sentences, how convenient, sure changes your meaning!!!!
I left it out intentionally – wanted to go through the ‘necessary and proper clause’ as a general argument first.
Also those last sentences just muddy the water even further. Obviously your thought would be that the insurance mandate would violate the rights of the individual, correct?
It might – this would be the constitutional issue presented by the individual mandate and this is what any court case should focus on. This is also the reason why the above opinion should be overturned – it failed to reach the real question and completely upended two centuries worth of jurisprudence on the ‘necessary and proper clause’.
So, does the mandate abrdige a pre-existing right of an individual? I don’t think it does. What preexisting right, specifically, would you say it abridges?
Not to mention, even if it DOES abridge an individual right, that alone would not immediately render the provision unconstitutional. As per the quote, it would only serve to create a presumption of unconstitutionality.
Now we’re getting somewhere
I would say that the mandate abridges the natural right of free choice, possibly violates the 1st and 4th Amendments, violates a persons right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for starters.
Also, the Law itself, based on Harrison’s words, would violate the pre=existing States right to regulate the healthcare industry, as it has done for decades.
In addition, The mandate makes a law that if there is non-compliance, then a fine is incurred. This violates Article 1, section 9, No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. A bill of attainder is a law by which a person is immediately convicted without trial. By virtue that a fine is levied, without trial, for failing to comlpy with the law, is, a Bill of Attainder, thus also unconstitutional!
Swing and a miss!
Nice try, but very doubtful this would be found to abridge your right to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. If anything it assists your right to life!
In all seriousness though, I don’t feel this is a winning argument. You are free to choose which insurance to purchase; however, you must purchase some insurance because your failure to do so abridges others’ rights (by way of the cost of your care).
As for abridging the preexisting rights of states to regulate health care, this is not a preexisting right. The health industry is clearly interstate commerce. The fact that the feds allowed the states to regulate aspects of the industry earlier does not mean that, by exercising its constitutional right over the industry now (via the commerce clause) that it is suddenly abridging states’ rights.
Also, the fee imposed for failure to purchase insurance is not a bill of attainder, but a tax. SCOTUS long ago rejected any argument otherwise. I’ll have to do a bit more digging on this point though. Maybe tomorrow.
For now, time to open up a nice bottle of wine and cook dinner…
Have a great night.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“ [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
Nowhere does it say “people” or “citizens”. This should be a no-brainer, but, I’m not a lawyer, and nothing is a no-brainer to lawyers.
After a few minutes of smoke coming out my ears, I have to agree with G-man.
If necessary and essential, someone explain the 700+ waivers.
G-man says >
“violates a persons right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,”
I say >
That combined with the ninth amendment has always been my favorite argument against the mandate. But, I don’t see a lot of push for this argument. It must be to simple and old fashioned for today’s complicated reasoning powers.
Buck says >
“Nice try, but very doubtful this would be found to abridge your right to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. If anything it assists your right to life!
In all seriousness though, I don’t feel this is a winning argument. You are free to choose which insurance to purchase; however, you must purchase some insurance because your failure to do so abridges others’ rights (by way of the cost of your care).”
I say >
Buck how can you reason like that? It just makes me shiver all over! I need to get Roddy Piper’s sun glasses and take good long look at you.
What kinds wine do you drink? Maybe that is the problem……. you should try some of my home brewed keg Cider! Maybe it will give you a kick to the right
” You are free to choose which insurance to purchase”
Ah, the old Animal House argument, more like “Thank you Sir, May I have another?!”
“you must purchase some insurance because your failure to do so abridges others’ rights (by way of the cost of your care).”
I wonder if Black Flag didn’t try and hobble into his computer monitor after reading this? Buck, If I don’t get sick or injured, it affects noone, If I do get sick or injured, and pay cash, it affects noone. Your argument is, not being mean or anything personnal, retarded.
G-man
Next time I need a Lawyer i will call you!
Buck is a sharp guy. You are doing quite well!
8)
Buck, Have a great evening, maybe we can return to this tomorrow. In the meantime, I’d like to give the SUFA jury a chance to decide, based on the evidence provided, is the law Constitutional or is the law UnConstitutional. The jurors are free to make their argument for their decision.
How say the Jury?
UnConstitutional.
Let’s see
1.A fee is a tax.
2.Charity is a Right.
3.Choice means picking what kind of mandated insurance you are forced to buy.
4.The overall intent of the Constitution is to limit Federal powers but their power is so board in the arena of their authority they can use that power to increase their arena of authority.
5. It is more important to acknowledge broad authority in the interpretation of their powers-than it is to insist they use the overriding guiding principal of individual rights to guide their decisions. Whether their powers are broad or narrow.
I’m going with unconstitutional
I don’t care whether it’s constitutional or not. It is a violation of my natural right to self determination.
They can take their mandate and stick it sideways crooked up their collective asses.
I will not comply.
I will go with UNCONSTITUTIONAL as well.
Having access to health care is NOT a right, it is a priveledge. Therefore if the Government tries to make it a right AND make it mandatory then it is UNconstitutional.
TS, in your opinion, why is it a privilege?
Privilege’s are rights that are worked for and earned and is not a basic requirement for the pursuit of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Our given rights are listed in the Bill of Rights. Health care is not a basic requirement to meet “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as was intended when it was written. Just because we change our modern interpretation of life, liberty and happiness does not mean the government can now dictate whatever it wants to suit their needs. If the founders wanted Health care to be a basic right, they would of inserted in one of the many amendments and bills, but you do not see it anywhere.
I consider Health care equal to access to a private club. If you meet the clearly laid out requirements to join the club / health care plan, then you have a right to apply for it. It is the clubs / health care industries privilege to grant you access to their services. If you demand a right to my health care, should I demand the right to your private club?
Truthseeker
Our given rights are NOT listed in the Bill of Rights. Only a few were listed there, the rest stand on their own.
Natural rights are the freedom of each man to act in accordance with his desires, as long as he does not impede upon the rights of others.
Thus natural rights involve a person’s choice to act or not act. They can not apply to the acquisition of a product/service or condition that is not natural in itself.
JAC,
Indeed!
Ugg, can’t sleep – not that it is so painful (about a 2 out of 10), but it is so irritated and nagging I just can’t get comfortable for longer than a couple of hours before the body is exhausted from it.
Interesting waching the rioting in Egypt…….they are no different than anywher else….first stores hit…electronics..then came furnishings..then came food……
A good excuse to theft. I would be willing to wager that most of the rioters have no idea as to why they are rioting….just free stuff in their mind.
D13,
This is typical where the government corruption and perversity has favored a small elite at the expense of the many.
The average Egyptian earns $50/month – where the government “favorites” enjoy the expanse of trinkets, they are essentially out of the reach of the common Egyptian.
On top of that, food prices have doubled globally. That doesn’t affect Americans that much – food is generally a minor component of the average budget – but in Egypt, where it represents a significant percentage, the increase is crushing.
So, the looting is explainable – and predictable.
Democrat Senator at full strength. Watch the video!
http://www.infowars.com/senator-schumer-doesnt-know-the-three-branches-of-government/
Ah, apparently a whole State sees it my way as far as the Ninth Amendment!!
This next comes from page 17 of 78 of the recent healthcare ruling.
“For example, on
March 17, 2010, before the Act passed into law, plaintiff Idaho enacted the Idaho
Health Freedom Act, which provides in pertinent part:
(1) The power to require or regulate a person’s choice in
the mode of securing health care services, or to impose a
penalty related thereto, is not found in the Constitution of
the United States of America, and is therefore a power
reserved to the people pursuant to the Ninth Amendment,
and to the several states pursuant to the Tenth
Amendment. The state of Idaho hereby exercises its
sovereign power to declare the public policy of the state
of Idaho regarding the right of all persons residing in the
state of Idaho in choosing the mode of securing health
care services free from the imposition of penalties, or the
threat thereof, by the federal government of the United
States of America relating thereto.
(2) It is hereby declared that . . . every person within the
state of Idaho is and shall be free to choose or decline to
choose any mode of securing health care services
without penalty or threat of penalty by the federal
government of the United States of America.”
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Vinson.pdf
One more quick side thought here > If I purchase health Insurance from a company within my own State am I involved with Commerce between the States? If I don’t buy insurance from a company that is within my own State, am I involved with Commerce between the States?
And here is part of page 42. I love this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“It is difficult to imagine that a nation
which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving
the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in
America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people
to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing
to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have
been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power”
[Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. at 564], and we would have a Constitution in name only.
Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended. See id. at 592″
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Vinson.pdf
All;
Hope everyone stays safe and warm over the next couple of days. In my neck of the woods they are predicting a major blizzard, 50 mph winds and 15 inches of snow. Could be one of the worst in 20 years.
Well, have wood piled, plenty of water, full freezer and 3-4 day supply of ‘adult beverages’. So as long as the house stays in one piece we’ll get through it.
Everybody stay indoors and spend some quality time with family.
See you on the back side.
CM
Bad weather is coming our way also. Got 4 inches of snow in two hours early this morning, and they are calling for as much as 3/4 of an inch of ice. Would rather have the snow and blizzard than ice! We’re set as well, all the necessities and a generator with plenty of gas. For those that must venture out in this weather, drive carefull!
Looking like its going to be pretty bad here as well – upwards of 10 inches of snow (on top of the 15 that fell last week) and 1/2 inch of ice expected to fall overnight into tomorrow.
Knowing my luck, I’ll be at work…sigh…
Mornin Buck!
The snow isn’t so bad, that damn ice can really cause problems, especially with power outages. Indianapolis is getting iced over as we speak, this storm could be a crippler for alot of places.
Stay safe!
Sounds like a plan CM! I thought I was ready but I’m picturing no school for the neighbor hoodlums so I better get out today and load up on some hot chocolate
Happy Tuesday
Dear Mrs.. Ms. or Sir:
I’m in the process of renewing my passport and still cannot believe this.
How is it that Radio Shack has my address and telephone number and knows that I bought a cable TV from them in 1987 (23 years ago), and yet, the Federal Government is still asking me where I was born and on what date.
For Christ sakes, do you guys do this by hand? Ever heard of computers?
My birth date you have in my social security file. It’s on EVERY income tax form I’ve filed for the past 30 years. It’s on my Medicare health insurance card and my driver’s license, It’s on the last eight damn passports I’ve had, It’s on every stupid customs declaration form I’ve had to fill out before being allowed off the plane for the last 30 years. And it’s on all those census forms that we have to do at election times.
Would somebody please take note, once and for all, that my mother’s name is Maryanne, my father’s name is Robert and I’m reasonably confident that neither name is likely to change between now and when I die.
Between you an’ me, I’ve had enough of this bureaucratic bullshit!
You send the application to my house, then you ask me for my #*&#%*& address.
What is going on? You must have a gang of bureaucratic Neanderthal morons working there!
Look at my damn picture. Do I look like Bin Laden? And “No,” I don’t want to dig up Yasser Arafat, for shit sakes. I just want to go and park my ass on a sandy beach. And would someone please tell me, why would
you give a damn whether I plan on visiting a farm in the next 15 days? If I ever got the urge to do something weird to a chicken or a goat, believe you me, I’d sure as hell not want to tell anyone!
Well, I have to go now because I have to go to the other end of the city and get another #*@&#^@*@& copy of my birth certificate to the tune of $100.
Would it be so difficult to have all the services in the same area so I could get a new passport the same day? Nooooo, that would require planning and organization. And it would be too logical for the @&^*^%@%
government.
You’d rather have us running all over the place like chickens with our heads cut off. Then, we have to find some asshole to confirm that it’s really me in the damn picture – you know, the one where we’re not allowed to
smile…..
Hey, you know why we can’t smile? We’re totally pissed off!
Yours truly – An Irate Citizen,
Garry K. Taylor.
P. S. Remember what I wrote about getting someone to confirm that the picture is me? Well, my family has been in the United States of America since 1776. I have served in the military for something over 35 years and have had security clearances up the ying yang. However, I have to get someone important to verify who I am – you know, someone like my doctor…….. WHO WAS BORN AND RAISED IN INDIA !
And you assholes want to run our health care system?????
Deep slow breaths.. everything is going to be ok..
Only if the Healthcare “law” is repealed…then everything will be OK.
Unless you’re one of those millions of people who cannot afford healthcare.. then you’re screwed.
But everything will be ok for the rest of us at least.
And why are you putting “law” in quotes? Was it not passed by the house and senate and signed by the President?
Just getting a “rise” out of you. The millions you speak of could not be denied health care.
The “law” has been since voted on in the house with a much different outcome. It is not yet written in stone that this will remain a “law”, and I for one hope it will be repealed.
It doesn’t matter how the house votes now. They’ll never have enough to override a veto of a repeal measure so they’re just doing it for show. I know it. You know it. They know it. Canine Weapon knows it.
Let’s not kid ourselves.
ALWAYS remember NEVER to use the words ALWAYS and NEVER…never is a long time my friend…2012 is not that far away.
2012 will be Obama’s reelection.
Why?
Because Palin.
That’s why.
So 2016? By then, the Republicans are going to hug this thing and pretend that they’re responsible for it. Show me one Republican willing to repeal SS? One? Maybe you have one or two. Three? Doubtful. That’s what it’s going to be like trying to repeal HCR once the ball gets rolling.
So says YOU! I prefer to take a wait and see attitude. At this moment, I do not feel like the Socialist in Chief will be reelected…
The “socialist in chief” (better than the “fascist in chief” – Bush) has two years to turn the economy around.
In truth, it matters not one whit about anything else he may have done or not done. HCR, DATD, DOMA, Iraq, Afghanistan? None of it.
Economy good = reelected
Economy bad = not reelected unless he’s running against Palin.
It doesn’t matter how the house votes now. They’ll never have enough to override a veto of a repeal measure
Your correct, a Federal Judge has thrown the whole law out, which means, unless the Feds get a stay, they cannot enforce the law, no repeal needed, it is not law at this moment
Not to be picky, but did you mean DADT? G-Man is correct…at the present it is not the law…
DATD = Don’t Ask, Tell Dem
8)
And the Feds have finally lost their freaking minds!
THOMAS SOWELL
The New American
Feb 1, 2011
Despite the old saying, “Don’t cry over spilled milk,” the Environmental Protection Agency is doing just that.
We all understand why the Environmental Protection Agency was given the power to issue regulations to guard against oil spills, such as that of the Exxon Valdez in Alaska or the more recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. But not everyone understands that any power given to any bureaucracy for any purpose can be stretched far beyond that purpose.
In a classic example of this process, the EPA has decided that, since milk contains oil, it has the authority to force farmers to comply with new regulations to file “emergency management” plans to show how they will cope with spilled milk, how farmers will train “first responders” and build “containment facilities” if there is a flood of spilled milk.
Since there is no free lunch, all of this is going to cost the farmers both money and time that could be going into farming — and is likely to end up costing consumers higher prices for farm products.
It is going to cost the taxpayers money as well, since the EPA is going to have to hire people to inspect farms, inspect farmers’ reports and prosecute farmers who don’t jump through all the right hoops in the right order. All of this will be “creating jobs,” even if the tax money removed from the private sector correspondingly reduces the jobs that can be created there.
Does anyone seriously believe that any farmer is going to spill enough milk to compare with the Exxon Valdez oil spill or the BP oil spill?
Easy solution, open the gates to the pig pen.
Well heck, now all we need await is the FDA ruling that milk is a carcinogen and dangerous to human health, a ruling by the FTC that it is a hazardous substance and must be transported is specialty containers on the nations roads, a ruling by DHS that the oil in the milk is a weapon of mass destruction and then the government can mandate licensing for the manufacture/transport/sale/use of milk (with the resultant ATF oversight).
Have I missed anything?
Have I missed anything?
I think you forgot that Obama must sign an executive order that requires the capture and proper disposal of all CO2 emmisions from cows. Hence, the next great Left Wing technological invention, the fart vacuum.
Oh yes! I did miss that. And of course those cows would be subject to the carbon tax too!
Fart vacuum? hmmm, I think it’ll have to be a green project to get federal stimulus dollars for research and development.
part of pge 63 of the judgement >
“The defendants have asserted again and again that the individual mandate is
absolutely “necessary” and “essential” for the Act to operate as it was intended by
Congress. I accept that it is. (26)
Nevertheless, the individual mandate falls outside the
boundary of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority and cannot be reconciled with a
limited government of enumerated powers. By definition, it cannot be “proper.”
(3) Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate
The individual mandate is outside Congress’ Commerce Clause power, and it
cannot be otherwise authorized by an assertion of power under the Necessary and
Proper Clause. It is not Constitutional. Accordingly, summary judgment must be
granted in favor of the plaintiffs on Count I.”
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Vinson.pdf
We’ll just have to wait and see what the SCOTUS has to say about that..
Yes, but will they get it Right?
Of course they will.
from pge 76 >
“30
On this point, it should be emphasized that while the individual mandate
was clearly “necessary and essential” to the Act as drafted, it is not “necessary
and essential” to health care reform in general. It is undisputed that there are
various other (Constitutional) ways to accomplish what Congress wanted to do.
Indeed, I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform
proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time
strongly opposed to the idea, stating that “if a mandate was the solution, we can
try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.” See
Interview on CNN’s American Morning, Feb. 5, 2008, transcript available at:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/05/ltm.02.html. In fact, he pointed
to the similar individual mandate in Massachusetts — which was imposed under the
state’s police power, a power the federal government does not have — and opined
that the mandate there left some residents “worse off” than they had been before.
See Christopher Lee, Simple Question Defines Complex Health Debate, Washington
Post, Feb. 24, 2008, at A10 (quoting Senator Obama as saying: “In some cases,
there are people [in Massachusetts] who are paying fines and still can’t afford
[health insurance], so now they’re worse off than they were . . . They don’t have
health insurance, and they’re paying a fine . . .”).”
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Vinson.pdf
As discussed above — the judge erred in his application of ‘necessary and proper’ jurisprudence.
The provision does not need to be ‘necessary and essential’ to health care reform in general. It only needs to be reasonably related to a consitutional end. The mandate satisfies this low threshold. The real question is whether or not it abridges a pre-existing state or individual right.
From above
“Nevertheless, the individual mandate falls outside the
boundary of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority and cannot be reconciled with a
limited government of enumerated powers. By definition, it cannot be “proper.””
Still the wrong standard being applied.
So long as the individual mandate is a reasonable means of regulating the health industry; and further so long as regulating the health industry falls within the commerce clause, the mandate is constitutional.
See? And you thought there was no need to take Con Law..
If only I knew I would be the resident liberal attorney on SUFA I wouldn’t have played video games through all those classes..
Buck, The judge points out that it is the Defendants that use this argument >
“The defendants have asserted again and again that the individual mandate is
absolutely “necessary” and “essential” for the Act to operate as it was intended by
Congress. I accept that it is. (26)
It seems to me that they are conflating issues.
Whether or not the mandate is ‘necessary and essential’ to the act as a whole is a different question than whether or not the mandate is constitutional. Perhaps this is why the judge was able to throw out the whole bill as opposed to severing the mandate from the rest (which would be the standard course of action).
Crazy judicial activists!
Boy, I sure do hate activist judges..
Strange that the two Democrat judges that said otherwise are not seen as activist judges, sounds awefull damn hypocritical to me!
Because they’re not writing legislation. They’re applying the existing standards to a law which was duly passed by the legislature and signed by the President.
The guy in Florida is making up his own standards in order to rule the way he wants to.
He is still a federal judge that has ruled this unconstitutional. Unless the Lefties get a stay, or until this ruling is overturned, there is no health care law AKA Obamacare…
I think this is incorrect. I think he stayed the ruling pending appeal.
So, HCR is still in effect even though the judge overruled it.
The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief
enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly.
Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456
U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy
[Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980)
(Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the
federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption
that officials of the
Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the
declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.
This is from the Judges decision, the law is currently “DEAD”. Only a Stay by a higher ranking (i think) Judge can change this.
No, he did not stay the ruling…that was something that the left leaning MSM inserted to make them feel better. There was no mention of a stay in this judges ruling…
Buck, I applied your reasoning to a hypothetical law of a future 536 idiots in D.C. The Feds declare that they want to reduce violent crime, reduce serious injury and death to victoms of violent crime, so the determine that under the commerce clause and being necessary and proper, that ALL citizens will be required to purchase a handgun, pay for Fed sponsored training and carry said handgun, concealed, wherever they may go outside of their home, to protect themselves and reduce violent crime. This law is mandated, in addition to the healthcare mandate to reduce unnecessary medical costs associated with violent crime.
What say you?
And it would say us all a lot of tax money for LE.
save not say
Not quite sure that would be constitutional.
The issue would be wether Congress has the constitutional authority to legislate in this arena. What clause would support this? The underlying issue here is violent crime – this is not an exercise of authority under the commerce clause. This is what differentiates the mandate in health insurance – the regulation of this industry does fall within the commerce clause.
Also, even if you could make an argument that the commerce clause would apply, this would run against the second aspect of ‘necessary and proper’ jurisprudence — it abridges a pre-existing right of individuals and states as laid out in the 2d Amendment. Congress shall not infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. This right presupposes my right to not keep nor bear arms.
If Congress can’t legislate against gun ownership, it similarly can’t legislate for gun ownership.
Buck
NO! The underlying issue is that Congress and SCOTUS have claimed that the Commerce Clause gives the authority to regulate guns, as they are sold across state lines and that such regulation is then tested against the 2nd Amendment and the “overwhelming and compelling interest of the State” to impose such regulations.
So…..if you like mandatory insurance then you will love your mandatory pistola.
Not exactly JAC.
The Commerce Clause does give some authority to the federal regulation of guns. But as you indicate, this authority must be tested against the 2d Amendment. Likewise, any requirement to purchase guns must be tested against the 2d Amendment and fail.
The underlying issue here is violent crime – this is not an exercise of authority under the commerce clause.
Last time I checked, most violent crimes are Federal offenses, which falls under Fed authority to regulate.
this is not an exercise of authority under the commerce clause. The Feds already regulate the firerms industry, Fed background checks, FFL’s, ect.
it abridges a pre-existing right of individuals and states as laid out in the 2d Amendment. How so, the States cannot deny ownership due the the 2nd Amendment and State/local laws that ban gun ownership have been determined unConstitutional .
If Congress can’t legislate against gun ownership, it similarly can’t legislate for gun ownership.
Apparently, the Feds can’t mandate Health insurance, so my hypothetical situation equals current UnConstitutional law decision. Mantation, in any form, is whooly UnConstitutional!!!
Heh, heh, heh.
Was just thinking the exact same thing.
Now lets wait for the old left wing argument that:
Freedom for me but none for you.
Why is that a left wing argument? The right makes that kind of BS argument all the time:
I can have all the dangerous guns I want, but you can’t have drugs because they’re dangerous.
I demand that the government get out of my private life, but still want it to stop those gay homosexual deviants from getting married.
I think HCR is evil, in part because it involves the government in private medical matters – the government should not be involved at all.. but I still want the government to outlaw abortions.
I could go on, but I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
Can we please, PLEASE, stop acting like everything wrong with this world is exclusively a left-leaning issue? The right is just as bad if not worse in every way. “Freedom for me, but none for you” is a left wing argument? Frak that. Both sides use it when it suits their purposes.
Can we please, PLEASE, stop acting like everything wrong with this world is exclusively a left-leaning issue?
Let’s see, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Obama, ect. Case closed!
Hitler, Mussolini, W.
Stop it! Stop! I know exactly what you’re about to say. Hitler was not left-leaning. He was an authoritarian dictator – just because he had the world “socialist” in the party name does not make him an actual socialist any more than the People’s Republic of China is a Republic or is controlled by the “people.”
Matt, Hitler was so far left, he fell off the cliff. It’s purely left wing BS to say otherwise. But, actually, I was thinking about how the Kyoto Protocol has mostly destroyed the economies of Spain and Japan. Leave it to the Left to make weather a political issue, to the detriment of those who fall for the BS. I actually read that some lefty whackball blames the situation in Egypt on Climate change (or is it global warming…climate disruption, or another name for the lefty fabrication)
Mathius
As I have said many, many times. The RIGHT would NEVER make such an argument.
I think the continued use of “Abortion” as an example of hypocrisy by the left is inappropriate. They are making a legitimate argument based on their belief that a fetus is a human being.
If you lefties want to fight with each other over using govt to regulate or not regulate then you need to address that particular issue at a much deeper level than “hypocrites”.
Everything WRONG with the world is ABSOLUTELY the fault of those on the LEFT. Truth is truth my friend.
Hint: Check your scale, you have it calibrated wrong.
I don’t think it’s calibrated wrong. I think the problem you have is that you’re so far to the right that you can’t see the readout on my scale.
Left/right in American terms is different from what you think it is. And you can keep insisting that we use your terminology and absolutist scale, but the world doesn’t work that way.
M: “Hey, JAC, how the weather?”
J: “It’s great today: -170.”
M: “Holy cow! -170? That’s freezing! How is that great?”
J: “No, no, you have your scale calibrated wrong, I’m using Kelvin.”
M: “Nobody uses Kelvin when talking about the weather.”
J: “Yes, well, I think it’s a better scale so I’m going to use it anyway and any confusion is your problem.”
M: (beats JAC with a 2×4)
I don’t see how hitting someone with a 2mm by 4mm is going to do much damage.
HA!
I should point out that HCR is not a law of “536 idiots in D.C.” Not all those idiots voted for it, so it can’t really be said to belong to all of them, just a majority.
Details, I know, but it was bothering me.
How ever said you were “nit-picky” hit the nail on the head
I’m so glad you said that.. it give me the ability to nit-pick a little more: “Whoever” not “How ever”
…
Though I’m sure I have no idea what you’re talking about
South Dakota Lawmakers Propose Mandating Gun Ownership — to Make Point About Health Law
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/01/sd-lawmakers-propose-mandating-gun-ownership-make-point-health-law/
We must be popular reading here at SUFA!
The comments section is hilarious!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/01/south-dakota-individual-mandate-guns_n_816772.html
I am so glad that our Left leaning friends here are far more intelligent then those that post comments on HuffPo. 90% of them are as smart as a bag of hammers.
from page 75 >
“(5) Injunction
The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief
enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly.
Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456
U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy
[Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980)
(Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the
federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption
that officials of the
Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the
declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.
See Comm. on
Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir.
2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir.
1985)
(“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers
are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . .
since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared
by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).
There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here.
Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is
not necessary.”
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Vinson.pdf
This could allow it to bypass the appeals and go directly to the USSC. But what do I know?
Buck the Wala
In answer to your question yesterday:
“Buck the Wala Says:
January 31, 2011 at 4:57 pm
What specific constitutional provision is being violated?”
The Act violates the authority granted by The Commerce Clause.
And the reason the latest judge overturned the entire law was because of the way the law was constructed. It made the mandate a linked requirement of other parts. I do not know whether that is true or his interpretation.
Laws usually carry a severability paragraph at the end. But the individual parts must be severable in actuality not just declared to be so.
So, if the mandate materially affects the other provisions then the entire act can be found in violation.
I have not studied the Act so I can not comment on whether it truly is severable or not.
As for your lawyers and scholars play, there are also many lawyers and constitutional scholars who think this unconstitutional. So that old dog just won’t hunt.
Besides, we all know who is teaching you lawyers in all those fine schools of law.
pge 63 >
“The defendants have asserted again and again that the individual mandate is
absolutely “necessary” and “essential” for the Act to operate as it was intended by
Congress. I accept that it is. (26)
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Vinson.pdf
WEATHER ALERT
Heads up Colonel.
I know many are getting some of this already but just giving you a heads up of what is headed east and south from here.
6 inches to a foot of snow on Sunday. Snowed all day.
Cold and windy yesterday, some drifting but mixed with sun.
10 BELOW ZERO this morning and clear as a bell.
Predictions of heavy winds later today or tomorrow, with low hitting -15 to -20.
Sorry. But we don’t make the stuff, it just passes through here on the way to everybody else.
I have never sent you bad weather!
I am Patriotic and only send bad weather into New Brunswick from here in Maine.
Sometimes they send it back for awhile but eventually they have to let it pass east of them.
I heard on the weather channel that in Houston, temp went from 70 to 50 in 17 minutes. And whats up with “Heads up Colonel”, it’s all coming from his neck of the woods, toward me, si today, I blame D13 for the bad weather (and whoever else is from Texas, cuz this is a Texas size storm, LOL)
For those interested in following live updates of the storm, from regular people posting from their hometowns, here’s a link, and you can post comments as well!
http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/midwest-northeast-snow-radar-updates_2011-01-30?role=
With the weather the way it is, I thought I might take a moment and wish everyone a happy winter.
There’s a poem by the esteemed poet Abigail Elizabeth McIntyre entitled “Winter” which I have always found to be a beautifully written work which captures the majesty and spirit of the season.
So, without further ado, Winter by A. E. McIntyre:
Shit!
It’s Cold!
The End.
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/eating/2011/01/the_united_states_of_beer.php
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/eating/2011/01/the_united_states_of_soft_drin.php
And would you look at that? Texas is represented by Dr. Pepper.. who wouldda thunk?
Totally off topic, but have you heard Sen. Chuck U. Schumer describe the 3 branches of Govt: House, Senate and President. Obviously this is incorrect, but maybe he is forgetting about Judicial because it means so little to him. If Sarah Palin had said this, the Media would be (again) telling us how stupid she is.
From yesterday, above.
Democrat Senator at full strength. Watch the video!
http://www.infowars.com/senator-schumer-doesnt-know-the-three-branches-of-government/
Your right, if this was Palin, the MSM would be on this like stink on sh!t, damn hypocrits.
Great comment refering to the lessons currently being taught in Egypt:
What the uprisings underscore is a fundamental reality that the world too often forgets. It gets to the core of the relationship between any government and any people, in all times and all places. The people far outnumber the government, and for that reason, and even when the government is heavily armed, every government must depend on some degree of consent to continue its rule. If the whole of a people rise up and say no, the bureaucrats and even the police are powerless.
This is the great secret of government that is mostly ignored until revolution day arrives
Let us not forget that, ultimately, the police and the military are also The People.
Now, for the million dollar question: what do you, sir, predict will emerge from all this? Will Egypt be a true democracy, and anarchist pseudo-state, unchanged-but-with-a-different-leader, more-so a fundamentalist Muslim theocracy, other?
I’m just curious about your thoughts, not convictions, but just how do you see this going down?
Mathius,
No.
There is no historical cultural basis of democratic governance at all. Egypt -over the last 10,000 years- has always been run by either Pharaohs, Emperors, Kings or Dictators. There is no fundamental reason I see that this will change this.
It may appear to become more theocratic – but it has always been that, but merely covered in a thin paint of secularism to appease America. The days of appeasement of the West are now over.
It will have a different leader who will quickly distance himself from the US/Western neo-colonialism. Egypt will stand on her own and retake the leadership of North Africa.
This will create many sleepless nights for the Israeli hawks – their free hand in Palestine will come to a quick end, and may unravel all of Israel. I warned that Israeli actions may permanently undermine the survivability of Israel itself in the mid-term. Those days are coming right now. Israel has a collapsing window of opportunity to secure her future in peace, but I do not think she will act on it in time.
Jordon and/or Libya is next…
As Egypt’s Crisis Grows, So Do the Anxieties in Israel
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2045328_2045333_2045166,00.html #ixzz1CjPZDeLg
An example of this inflation is in the price of wheat. The January 2011 future price is $335.00 per metric ton, while last year at this time, it was $157.00 per metric ton — an increase of 113%. Not all of this increase is due to the inflationary impact of the dollar, but with global yields down due to weather factors, this foolish U.S. monetary policy has made matters needlessly worse.
The second factor in the overall global food situation is the American decision to, in essence, burn food in its cars, a policy championed by the environmentalists since the 1990s. In 2010, the United States produced 13.1 billion bushels of corn. Of that amount, 4.2 billion bushels went into ethanol (33% of total production). That represents for 2011, a year in which global stocks are down nearly 8%, over 14% of all corn grown in the world being used in the most inefficient manner possible — being put into American gas tanks.
Thus, the future price of corn per bushel in January 2011 is $6.51, as compared to $3.84 in January 2010 — an increase of nearly 70%. While the price spike is in part due to lower yields, had the corn destined for ethanol been put back into the overall corn stocks, the net effect would have been to offset this lower crop, and the global market would have maintained the 2010 price level despite the inflationary impact of the dollar.
There is no quicker way to foment riots and revolution than to deprive the populace of food,
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/america_and_the_middle_east_fo.html
RACHEL MADDOW: If you want to go even further into the deep, you are welcome to, but it may be dangerous to the health of your computer. Today, we made Kent Jones go out in a life (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to see what he could find way out there.
And what he found was spectacular. It involves Sarah Palin and a Web site called “ChristWire.org.” They say, quote, “The escalating crisis in Egypt could become a defining moment for Sarah Palin.”
“Gov. Palin needs to speak out publicly and forcibly for an American-led invasion of Egypt to protect our interest in North Africa.”
“As the largest recipient of foreign aid next to Israel, the U.S. has a tremendous investment in keeping Egypt stable and relatively terrorist free. Upon her direction, other western nations are sure to join us.”
An American-led invasion of North Africa. To be clear, this is what these folks are asking Sarah Palin to do. This is not Ms. Palin’s own idea.
This is actually a moment when there is a real center in American policy. The center is a bipartisan thing, but that doesn’t mean that everybody is in the center.
Problem is ChristWire.org is all a satire. Maybe someone on Maddow’s crack staff could have looked at the site’s hysterical mission statement for a clue:
Mission
Dear friends, we are living in cruel days. Evil hours. Yes, these are certainly dark times and it’s time for the moral majority to once again step forward to bring freedom and liberty to the world.
Our culture was built on the guiding principles of conservatism and Christianity, from which all morality is born. As such American heritage was meant to be passed on from generation to generation, ensuring that our principles…our values…were never compromised.
But alas, the Left Wing Conspiracy and Liberal Agenda is spreading like a plague not only through our fine society, but through lesser cultures as well. Their sinful antics and attempt to pass off their wanton carnal desires into mainstream culture is destroying society and mankind.
That’s where we come in. Together, in this community, you and your Moral Leaders will combat the evil liberals of this world and once again ensure that a bit of freedom and righteousness once again permeates every country, and let those who don’t abide by our teachings know the eternal pit of hellfire shall be awaiting!
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/02/01/rachel-maddow-bashes-sarah-palin-citing-satirical-christian-website#ixzz1Ck9jbb00
A father walks into a restaurant with his young son. He gives the young boy 3 nickels to play with to keep him occupied. Suddenly, the boy starts choking, going blue in the face.
The father realizes the boy has swallowed the nickels and starts slapping him on the back. The boy coughs up 2 of the nickels, but keeps choking. Looking at his son, the father is panicking, shouting for help.
A well dressed, attractive, and serious looking woman, in a blue business suit is sitting at the coffee bar reading a newspaper and sipping a cup of coffee. At the sound of the commotion, she looks up, puts her coffee cup down, neatly folds the newspaper and places it on the counter, gets up from her seat and makes her way, unhurried, across the restaurant.
Reaching the boy, the woman carefully drops his pants; takes hold of the boy’s testicles and starts to squeeze and twist, gently at first and then ever so firmly. After a few seconds the boy convulses violently and coughs up the last nickel, which the woman deftly catches in her free hand.
Releasing the boy’s testicles, the woman hands the nickel to the father and walks back to her seat at the coffee bar without saying a word.
As soon as he is sure that his son has suffered no ill effects, the father rushes over to the woman and starts thanking her saying, “I’ve never seen anybody do anything like that before, it was fantastic.
Are you a doctor? ”
“No”, the woman replied. “I’m with the I.R.S.”
OBAMUNISM
http://www.infowars.com/obamunism/
Buck,
The statement about the individual mandate being necessary and essential to the act was not a reference to any “necessary and proper” clause specifically. It was a justification for the need to eliminate the entire act based upon the unconstitutionality of that particular portion of the law. This is why it was not in violation of precedent of striking only certain portions of laws based on unconstitutionality.
The reference to “necessary and essential” to health care reform was a statement that there is no proof that this specific act, nor the individual mandate can be proven to be essential to the general welfare, which is part of the basis for government regulation of health care in general. Without such proof that this specific bill is necessary and proper to the carrying out of the “promote the general welfare clause”, there is no justification for the law based upon that clause in the Constitution.
The other portion of authority for the law is based on the commerce clause, which, as I have said before, does not include the mandating of purchase. Firstly, there is not necessarily proof that economy of scale will be able to consistently and universally decrease the cost of health care. There are some aspects which economies of scale do not fix. The distribution of cost is not relevant. If the sole reasoning for regulation of health care based on the affect of cost via distribution to more people, then such authority be extended to anything deemed a “need” and the cost of said things would be levied between all people. This means that food, housing, transportation, education, health care, utilities, energy, tools of various trades, communications tools and accounts, and a host of other things would have to be provided according to need and that cost distributed among all citizens regardless of need.
In other words, if I, as a healthy person, choose not to pay for any sort of health care of insurance, it is no different than me choosing not to purchase a computer if my profession does not require one, or not to purchase a hammer if I am not a carpenter. To state that I must in order to reduce the cost for all people would be tantamount to me paying a fee so that anyone who “needed” a hammer could get one at the nationally reduced rate, and also with a computer.
Certainly a tax could be levied to do this, such taxes are already in place to pay for education, for instance, whether you are a student or not, and whether you have children in need of schooling or not. As such, however, these taxes would have to be passed via the same process as any other tax, and the monies would be collected by the government for a government service, either direct or contracted. A tax has never been put in place, that I am aware of, that applies only if you do not engage in a private purchase of some sort. There is no elimination of tax for those who purchase alternate education, for instance. Even the voucher program filters the money through as a government service, and metes that money out in a relatively equal fashion, rather than being an exception for any such taxes based upon the existence of a private transaction.
As to the overall authority to engage in regulation of health care itself, I find this in violation of the 10th amendment. Even the commerce clause cannot apply in cases where the transaction was within a state, rather than between or across the several states, nor in cases where no transaction took place, nor does it apply to the provision of health care itself.
MATT,
Here’s your spare shovel back. Just came in with two new ones.
Had to hit 5 stores for a new coat for my son. Everyone is sold out of coats. Ended up getting a $120 one (which I would never pay for) for $45! YAY!. I see no reason to leave the house for a few days. YAY again!
I’m in a bit of a pickle. My coat, which I love, is the warmest thing ever (note, this is not my electric heated jacket, this is an actual coat). It looks like I killed a bear, field dressed it, and made it into an over-sized item of clothing.
Unfortunately, my wife informs me that I am no longer allowed to wear it in public.
But I’m not good with the cold.
So, here’s the question: What is the warmest jacket on the planet which would be appropriate to wear in civilized society?
North Face if you have the cash.
Then Columbia if you have the cash.
Check out Dick’s Sporting Goods online. If you have cash you won’t be disappointed.
I’m with Emilius. Lose the fur coat.
Bah, screw that. Fur rocks. I was sad when I had to part with my full length muskrat overcoat. It was warmer than any North Face, Patagonia, Columbia, or any other hi-tech brand of coat that I have worn. It was old tho, and the stitching was breaking down, it had to be scrapped.
I still wear my full length leather duster. Not warm, but flawless against the elements. Makes whatever I wear under it (usually a fleece jacket) insulate well. That and some SilkSkins or Hot Chilis long johns and I can handle whatever, at least within the lower 48.
Matt, remember, fashion has nothing to do with civilization. Wear what you want. Image is nothing, function over form I always say.
My girl disagrees, but she is not the one that has to do the outdoor chores.
Of course I agree with your woman!
But I agree with you too. UnderArmor or the like works wonders too.
Another good brand is Carhartt. Warm but not attractive. It will take years of abuse though.
Spyder. Spend the money; its worth it.
And shame on Emilius for not letting you wear your dead, field dressed bear…
Well sir,
This old country boy living up in the Rockies says it would be one that
And as much as I dearly love my missus, I would be telling her – with utmost love – that if she didn’t like me wearing it in public she could always stay home when I do.
(Note, said with love while ducking as the frying pan swings past
)
Um, On your first date did you wear the field dressed bear to charm her? I don’t think there would be a second date if that was the case. If it was me the frying pan would be cast iron!
That’s why you court girls in the summer.
lol….
Why no ma’am. I said “this old country boy,” not “this old fool.”
She could swing the cast iron, but them being heavier just gives me even more time to duck.
Tisk tisk fellas!
When is that SUFA gathering? ooh can I make some hush money now!
To make hush money from me would require I have money to give, which isn’t the case since I spend all extra cash on goods – which in a time of turmoil will do me and my family more good than any guvmint paper!
Sorry to have to disappoint you.
plainlyspoken
Remind me again where in “the Rockies” you hang out.
By the way, I would also keep wearing the bear coat.
And my Russian fur hat.
Of course around these parts you would would look just fine among the civilized folks dressed in bear.
Tucked away about 8500 feet altitude approximately 15 miles west of Cripple Creek, CO.
Our small bit of life, liberty and happiness. Home to to us, our pets, dairy goats and hens.
It was a brisk -15 this morning without wind chill and only about 5 inches of a dry powdery snow from the last storm. Can’t ask for better IMHO.
Can’t pass that comment up!
“It looks like I killed a bear, field dressed it, and made it into an over-sized item of clothing.”
Don’t ever wear that coat in my neck of the woods, you won’t last the day. People up here eat anything, if they have any teeth left.
I read once that if you pour heated bear fat into the barrel of an old Damascus shotgun and leave it over night, the fat will ooze right through the barrel. You will find a layer of grease on the outside of the barrel in the morning. Damascus barrels were kind of spiral wrapped. Not a good gun to shoot modern shot gun shells through, especially if the inside of the barrel is pitted. Just want you to know this Mathius in case you ever buy one for self defense in the big city.
My Stepdad had an old Parker side-by-side double barrel shotgun with hand twisted Damascus steel barrels. It was one of the prettiest shotguns I ever saw.
I would have lit that beauty off though with ANY modern shotgun shell in it – those barrels wouldn’t have handled the pressure.
He sold it for a tidy sum before he died.
::sigh::
not “would” but “wouldn’t”
(Must have one of those Texas keyboards that give D13 so much trouble at times.)
PS,
The old scatterguns!! I have an old Fox Sterlingworth 16 ga, DBBL, one of only 500 ever made in 16 ga. Got it for my 9th birthday, and it can still knock a buck down at 100 yards.
Also have a 1950′s vintage 12 ga, bolt action, in mint condition. Before my Dad went into the Nvay in ’59, he sold it to a highschool friend for 50 bucks. Last year the friend gave it back to him, having never shot it, after they reunited at the 50 year class reunion in 2009.
Matt, Don’t buy a shotgun, you’ll poke your eye out
I had a Baker side by side with hammers. The barrel was a bit pitted inside. I never shot it, but I had a crazy neighbor and he put a low brass shell loaded with birdshot in it and fired it once. It held up fine. I tried to find some black powder shells for it but had no luck, (back before the internet caught on). They are a nice gun to hang on the wall.
I believe the date on that Baker was 1897.
Check out REI as well, usually decent prices.
If you don’t care about the label, check out sportsmansguide.com …
Ahhh,,,California. This what all health care wold look like if Obama Care is not repealed.
It’s the perfect storm in California when it comes to rising health care costs, with millions bracing for huge increases in their monthly insurance bill. What’s happening? The Golden State is one of many states that doesn’t allow for rate regulation. In addition, California is home to most all of the big insurance companies and the largest market of uninsured people. At the same time major insurers are racing to beat a July 1st deadline requiring these companies to publicly justify their rate hikes.
So, what the people of California are left with are massive increases in their health insurance premiums, to the tune of nearly 60 percent when it comes to Blue Shield in particular. Just today they caved in to public pressure and agreed to join every other insurance company in California like Aetna, Anthem Blue Cross and Pacificare to wait sixty days to raise their rates, but there’s little doubt those rate hikes are still coming later this spring.
In the meantime economists say the tough economy is also playing a role in causing insurance companies to raise their premiums. “Healthy people are dropping out of insurance,” says Dr. Neeraj Sood of the University of Southern California, ” and what happens then is it is basically the unhealthy people who are left with insurance and they cost much more and therefore premiums have to rise.”
But patients are not the only people affected by rising prices; Doctors are also feeling the heat. Dr. Mark Weiss, a long time podiatrist in Century City, California, is also a victim of bigger health care bills. “About a year and a half ago, I opened up my mail and there was a 600 dollar a month increase in my premiums for a policy that was less than good,” says Weiss. His Anthem Blue Cross coverage had gone up more than 20 percent, at the same time his patients were experiencing huge rate hikes. As a result, some of his patients dropped their insurance coverage and Weiss and other area doctors say they had little choice but to concentrate on patients who pay cash for their visits. “My overhead keeps on going up, my reimbursement goes down and that is why a lot of the doctors in the community don’t take any insurance,” adds Weiss.
And as insurance companies gear up for the new federal health legislation to take effect in 2014, many expect they’ll continue to raise their rates, out of concern for how the rules might change in the future. That prospect has patients around the nation worried what that means for them.
Ely Zimmerman, who is a regular patient of Doctor Weiss admits he knows many who have thought of taking their chances and dropping their health insurance all together, but says he won’t do that. “I can’t go without health insurance,” says Zimmerman. “You hear stories of friends who have heart attacks or strokes, so you can’t be without health insurance, I feel like there’s no choice.”
Hi Ya’ll
The weather has taken a turn for the worse here, steady freezing rain, which is expected to get heavier as the night continues. I just measured an eighth of an inch, in just a couple hours. As it continues, the ice is expected to reach between 1/4 ans 1/2 inch, which means there is a great chance of losing power. That also means losing Internet, cable, phone, and/or power. So even with the generator, I may not be able to have much communication for awhile. But I have some phone numbers and will pass on some updates.
With that said, some kind words before the power goes kuput. Buck, It’s unConstitutional, get over it! Matt, The fur coat makes you look like a pimp, your wife is right. USW, Black Flag, and Ray, Get well soon!
I’ll be on for alittle while, I hope, before sleep time.
Peace and stay warm and safe!
G!
GMan
Stay safe my friend. Watch out for the falling trees if the ice gets very thick.
Good luck and live free
JAC
Thank you!
We are prepped. Generator, chainsaws, plenty of food and adult beverages, LOL. We have well water, just need to plug in reloading our jugs and hygiene needs. This might be good practice for future more longterm events. If it gets really bad with ice, I can see us without power for a week or more. With a couple million trees next to the elevated power lines, I might get the next two years worth of firewood this week
Stay Warm and Safe!
I echo the stay safe wish. Good luck and enjoy the peace and quiet.
Thanks
Like you I’m tucked away, in the country. Peace and quiet is constant, and the wildlife is just wonderful to watch, in our backyard! I bet your in a beautiful place as well, just colder!
Yes sir, beautiful does describe my little spot! Like you, it’s quiet, plenty of wildlife in the yard too. It took us enough years to escape living in the city and we’d never go back.
Temp is a chilly -20 (without wind chill) at 2200 MST. We’re projected to -25 for the low tonight.
I’ve got the heavy quilts on the beds.
The last week of October ’10, I flew to Portland Ore. Packed a Uhaul, put a jeep on a trailer and drove back to Pa. I didn’t get into Colorado, but it sure was awesome scenery driving through the Columbia gorge, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska, ect. Took five days, but was worth it, seeing that part of our country. I think we were up to 9500 feet on one highway, it was really a nice place to see. Someday maybe I’ll get to do some elk hunting in your neck of the woods!
If someone posted this already, I missed it so sorry for the double post.
But sometimes life is just too funny. From Michelle Malkin:
About That School Obama Highlighted in the State of the Union…
By Doug Powers • January 30, 2011 04:00 PM
**Written by Doug Powers
In spite of the woeful state of education in many areas of the country, there are still reasons to be encouraged. President Obama outlined one such example in his State of the Union speech last week:
When President Barack Obama spotlighted a successful school in his State of the Union speech, he picked Bruce Randolph School in Denver.
“Take a school like Bruce Randolph in Denver,” the president said. “Three years ago, it was rated one of the worst schools in Colorado. Last May, 97 percent of seniors received their diploma.”
Wow, that’s an impressive turnaround. How did they go from bad to great? Well, that part of the story ended up on the cutting room floor during the SOTU editing process, for obvious reasons:
Bruce Randolph was a middle school when it opened in 2002. In 2007, Denver Public Schools gave Bruce Randolph School permission to operate autonomously. It was the first school in the state to be granted autonomy from district and union rules.
Each teacher then had to reapply for his or her job. A published report said only six teachers remained.
When the devil is in the details, simply ignore the details.
Un fracking believable………………Nuff said???????????
This is interesting, Obama’s speach was flat, as if he didn’t believe what he was saying. If he chose this example, it was on purpose, because he had to know the facts would come out (suprised it took so long!). Maybe he was hinting at the future. The MSM does it all the time, and if you carefully listen, there are clues to the future. I can name, based on this premise, a few future events that will likely occur and why. Your right, the devil is in the details.
If I’m wrong, LOL, then it’s just another example of how his sheep are so easily fooled!
This keyboard is a target this Spring, it can’t spell for crap!
Wolves never go hungry when sheep are abundant.
@JAC – what I find equally “un fracking believable” is that we post the Doug Powers piece (via Michelle Malkin) w/o bothering to see if Mr. Powers left some of the SOTU speech on the cutting room floor prior to the hit piece.
Here is the full paragraph that Powers selectively choose his material from:
“You see, we know what’s possible from our children when reform isn’t just a top-down mandate, but the work of local teachers and principals, school boards and communities. Take a school like Bruce Randolph in Denver. Three years ago, it was rated one of the worst schools in Colorado — located on turf between two rival gangs. But last May, 97 percent of the seniors received their diploma. Most will be the first in their families to go to college. And after the first year of the school’s transformation, the principal who made it possible wiped away tears when a student said, “Thank you, Ms. Waters, for showing that we are smart and we can make it.” (Applause.) That’s what good schools can do, and we want good schools all across the country.”
hmmmmm……
So while in the preceding paragraph “Race to the Top” was highlighted, I read the words regarding Bruce Randolph as praising a bottom-up approach.
Un-fracking believable eh?
Sloppy Doug Powers……
Sloppy Michelle Malkin……
Sloppy JAC…….
Ray
Not at all. What is the point of Power’s piece Ray?
It is not about bottom up or top down.
So apparently you missed the point, created your own and then accuse me and Mr. Powers of being sloppy.
There is nothing in the part you added that is contradictory of the point Powers makes.
Try again.
Thanks for finally responding JAC. I have read both posts several times today trying to figure what Ray is seeing as the point. Still don’t know what he’s trying to get at.
It must be a full moon in lefty world today. They all have their heels dug in.
Punxsutawney Phil foresees an early spring, but bright blue skys just west of there, so don’t know how he didn’t see his shadow, maybe the break in the clouds didn’t reach there yet.
Don’t trust anything he says, he been bought out by the establishment!
Egypt…..interesting devopments. Egyptians turning on each other…army staying out if it. Burning, looting, fisticuffs….Pretty neat idea keeping the Army out of it. Let them throw rocks, burn their neighbors homes, steal from their friends, turn over cars that do not belong to them, shut down their own industries, destroy their infrastructure…..that will surley teach Mubarak a lesson. Geez….the mentality of the rioter.
Have to admit, Obama has done pretty well in handling this, by doing nothing. If you see a hornets nest, don’t stick your er, finger in it, you won’t like the results.
I heard the senate was sending a special envoy, and am not thrilled. We have a president and a Sec of State, and do not need more chiefs putting themselves into what is already a mess. I could see them requesting a meeting with Obama and expressing their concerns, but sending a rep. is plainly wrong.
Rep already went, according to the news a while ago, and Obama took credit for the decision of Mubarak to step down in September and called for a quick orderly transition.
In the same news report, there was an interview of a yong Egyptian rioter laughing about the fact that he now has a big screen tV and various other electronics that he could not otherwise afford…. and when asked about stealing from his friends and neighbors, he just shrugged his shoulders.
Rioters aren’t interested in politics.
A march, or a fight with the police or the army, may be considered a riot, but it’s not really – it’s a battle (in whatever form) between two opposing sides – one representing the old order, one the hope for a new order. There is a group and there is a focused goal: to change X into Y, or maybe just to get rid of X.
Rioters are angry, disorganized, frenzied human-animals who will hit, burn, destroy, or steal anything and everything. These are people who have had the bonds of society lifted from them and, in their wild rush of freedom, behave entirely selfishly. Their goal is the intrinsic animalistic pleasure of every male – to acquire goods and cause destruction. They are not interested in achieving anything, or changing anything – they are simply stealing and causing mayhem.. be cause they can.
We should not confuse these two things. They are not the same.
HInt to the Egytians: If the army is staying out of it…..do not continue to advance on their positions…eventually, they will not stay out of it.
Good advise.
The headline was “Group Behind ACORN Undercover Videos Sets Up Planned Parenthood ‘Sting.’” Yes, “sting” may be what you call it when liberal journalists take a hidden camera to expose malfeasance, but if the videographers are pro-life, the word goes into quotes. Peralta began: “The same group that went undercover at ACORN offices back in 2009 is now going after Planned Parenthood.” Wrong.
NPR was forced to correct: “An earlier version of this post stated Live Action was associated with James O’Keefe. They are not, and O’Keefe was not a part of this undercover video.”
But Live Action is still upset at the new headline: “Conservative Group Sets Up Planned Parenthood ‘Sting.’” They claim the label is wrong:
This title is still false as we have never identified ourselves as a “conservative” group. We are not conservative or liberal. Just because polls show that more conservatives are pro-life than liberals does not make our pro-life organization conservative. That is illogical. We are simply pro-life. So NPR, please stop arrogantly imposing your labels upon us.
Political reporters may find it natural to assign pro-life activists to the right, but not only are there pro-life Democrats and even pro-life socialists — there’s the problem that political reporters almost never describe “abortion rights” groups as liberals. In a 1998 study of newspaper labeling, MRC found about pro-lifers were described as “conservative” or some variant of it in 47 percent of stories, while abortion advocates were identified as “liberal” in 2.8 percent of stories.
Kathryn Lopez of National Review was among the first on this expose and talked to Live Action president Lila Rose:
Rose believes that the innocent unborn need to be protected, but also has a great love for these women who find themselves in these clinics. “Every prostitute is a victim,” she says.
“Planned Parenthood could be the first line of defense,” Rose says, for an Asian girl smuggled into the country for sex. Instead, in this particular Pert Amboy clinic, a sex trafficker was coached into how to make everything “look as legit as possible.” Coaching. “For the most part, we want as little information as possible,” she explained. The Planned Parenthood worker’s only obstacle to providing him the full “streamlined” services he wants to keep his business running is some auditing details she’s worried they could get caught on for abortions of these girls, in the country illegally, under 14 and 13, needing abortions. Saying – laughing — “You’ve never got this from me. Just to make all our lives easier,” she hands the pimp the name of another, non-Planned Parenthood clinic, which can get away with more. “They’re protocols are not as strict as ours, they get audited differently.”
When asked how long a girl might have to wait to get back to the work of the sex trade after an abortion, two weeks minimum is the answer. He protests, “We’ve still got to make money.” The clinic worker understands his predicament and so advises that the girls can still work “Waist up, or just be that extra action walking by” to advertise the girls who are still at full-body work.
It’s chilling. It’s ridiculous to know that in the wake of catching onto Live Action’s fieldwork, Planned Parenthood has reportedly warned its clinic workers to know there could be cameras on them.
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/02/01/oops-npr-mangles-planned-parenthood-sting-story-forced-correct#ixzz1CoF7jaZp
I’m not interested in headlines and retracted headlines. Nor am I interested in opinions and cherry-picked excerpts and blurbs. Do you have a link to the video itself – I’ll make up my own mind, thank you.
Note to US Senate: Force the vote today and force Senators to take a stand one way or another. If Obama care is so great….stand up and say so. Quit hiding behind mommy’s skirts….get some gonads, already, and stand up for your convictions and why. FORCE THE VOTE TODAY….and then FORCE THE VETO….and then FORCE THE OVERRIDE VOTE….and then PUBLISH THE RESULT BY VOTE. That would be a great start to transparency…….after all it WAS promised.
It’s all a circus. Vote, don’t vote, veto, don’t veto, override, don’t override. None of it is done from conviction or fortitude of personality. They’re politicians and they will do as much and as little as they believe necessary to hold onto their seats of power.
Bah.
Yet you continue to believe that we need Government to regulate our daily lives.
Govt is immoral, lazy, stupid etc. But we need more Govt because men are immoral, lazy, stupid, etc., and Govt is of course made up of men.
Yes.
Government does not exist. There is no such thing as “government.” Point to “government.” What did you point at? A building? The city of Washington D.C.? A copy of the Constitution that you keep posted on your wall? “Government” is nothing more than a collection of people: civil workers, police, military, judges, congressmen, the President, tax collectors, spies, caseworkers, et cetera.
Every single one of them is a person.
And People. Are. Dumb.
And People. Are. Lazy.
And People. Are. Selfish.
And, especially in the case of individuals who think so highly of themselves that they think they are qualified to be political leaders, People. Are. Narcissistic. Sociopaths.
None of them cares much what’s best for you, or for the country, or for the world, or the environment, or Egypt, or SUFA, or the plight of the proletariat. These things are inconsequential to them.
What they care about is maintaining their positions, or better yet, elevating their positions.
To achieve that goal, they need the consent of The People. (talking about political leaders here, not Joe Postal-Worker).
It is by making our collective interests clear that the selfish, greedy, sociopathic narcissists are forced to aggregate what they believe to be in our best interests, because by serving our best interests, they serve their own interests.
The leaders do what is the best interest of The People because if they don’t then The People will take away their power. Now, in an ideal world, that would be the end of it, but Camus was wrong and this is most assuredly not the best of all possible worlds. The story, unfortunately continues, because The People is also made up of individual people who suffer all the same failings.
And these individuals can be stirred up, riled up, placated, excluded, fear mongered to, hate mongered to, pandered to, bribed, extorted, manipulated, and otherwise led to vote for a leader who has not necessarily served their best interests.
As such, you find “leaders” doing stupid things that look good, and which fool the individuals, causing the collective The People to confer power upon that leader. Things like the perennial favorite biggest piece of horseshit legislation ever: Terry Shivo. Or voting for a war on little-to-no evidence because the individuals who make up The People are afraid and want action, so rather than taking a long-term view that might be in The People’s best interest, they capitulate immediately and begin an unnecessary war – just so they can be seen doing something.
So, in the end, the system is generally better than the alternative, but it is far from perfect. Is HCR a good thing? I have no idea. Will it bring down costs? Who knows – probably not. Will it help the poor and uninsured? Who know – probably. Will it hurt the well off? Who knows – possibly. But why is virtually every Democrat in favor while every single Republican is against? If we assume that there is some legitimate debate over efficacy, one would assume that the ideological split would not encompass 100% of the Republican party, and 100% of the Democratic party. If there is no legitimate debate over efficacy, then both party should be in unanimous agreement and act accordingly.
No, they’re just posturing and game playing. As Red said in one of the greatest movies of all time: “So You go ahead sonny and stamp your form and stop wasting my time. Because to tell You the truth, I don’t give a shit.”
Mathius,
As usual, you contradict yourself in an attempt to justify your utterly bizarre theory.
(1)The leaders do what is the best interest of The People because if they don’t then The People will take away their power
(2)they think they are qualified to be political leaders…None of them cares much what’s best for you
Completely typical of the nonsense of Statists.
Flag, you could trying being polite. It seems to work well for the rest of SUFA. Just a thought, but it’s early in the morning and I don’t have time to explain to you the nuances of social interactions among self-selecting peer groups.
That said, to address your myopic criticism, I felt that I was very clear, but let me try again.
I don’t care, personally, whether the dishes sit in the sink for a week. I won’t care until I run out of dishes in the cabinet.
Emilius, however, cares very much. She cares so much, that it is detrimental to my, er, self-interests, for me to leave my dishes in the sink instead of rinsing them and putting them in the dish washer.
So, to put this in terms you should be able to understand, I don’t care about the state of the dishes (“None of them cares much what’s best for you”), but I do it anyway (“do what is the best interest”) because it is in MY best interest to do so.
One more time, just for kicks: Leaders don’t care about you, or what you want. But they will do it anyway, because they care about what they want and you have the ability (collectively) to deprive them of what they want (power).
Follow? Great.
Mathius,
That was me being polite
I was going to call you an “addlebrain cretin” but then JAC would have called a “personal foul” on the play for “unnecessary roughness”.
As continued by your example here, you do not understand your own position.
You use an example in a household to be equal to society – where in your household, the comfort and pleasure of your partner is among the paramount goals you hold – where in society you do not nor cannot hold the same goal.
Thus you confuse your emotional attachment to your mate to be the same in some evil, immoral politician feeling for the People – and base your bizarre theory on this confusion.
Mathius,
To further correct your poor analogy:
My household is similar to yours – I couldn’t care less about the clutter, the dishes and the dirty socks lying in the living room – but Mrs. Flag does – so I do the dishes, limit the clutter to my “cave”, and avoid leaving socks and underwear in the more “public” rooms of the house.
But if you came over and complained I wouldn’t give a flying F00K about your opinion or comments – because you are nothing compared to Mrs. Flag or my own personal living style.
This is where you always fall down – you hold contradictions where you do agree about the impersonal relationships that 99.999% of the time you engage in with strangers – yet, to confirm your bizarre politics flip around and insist that the evil politicos suddenly DO CARE about the 99.9999% impersonal relationships – but cannot make a rational case to this flip-flop.
Perhaps it is different in the Flag household, but wives hold certain leverage over husbands.
If I do not wish to feel the illeffects of that leverage, I will do what she wants in this case.
It has little to do, in this example, with affection, etc. It is about leverage.
Similarly, The People, hold leverage over the politicians.
If the politicians do not wish to feel the illeffects of that leverage, they will do what The People want.
They don’t have to care about it (just as I don’t care about the dishes), agree with it, or anything else. They just have have to do it.
Matt, how is it that you ignore the even more direct control levied on businesses in the free market. You seem to think that only a government can control the evil of business, but that the people can control the evil of government. The fact is that the influence, control, and power over businesses is more immediate, frequent, and powerful via the transactional relationship of customers than the occasional vote and polling that can be exercised as influence or control over government. It seems a free market solution would be far superior than a government one.
Excellent point, Jon. Excellent.
The only thing I would point out is that the transactional influence does not align the interests of the business owner and the consumer. The business owner wants to charge as much as he can get away with while offering as little as possible (econ 101). The consumer wants the opposite.
Elected representatives are directly aligned with the will of The People. What makes The People happy will help ensure reelection.
The the transactional relationship (voting, of a sort) that occurs in business, does not create this alignment – the owner still wants to charge the most while giving the least, and the consumer wants the opposite. All this “voting” does is force them to reach an middle ground that is acceptable to two opposing forces (S and D).
Here, here!!!
Truthseeker,
I understand your argument – but it is important to “correct” a few things in your statements that are vital misunderstandings -and dangerous- if they are allowed to stand.
The Constitution (Bill of Rights) did NOT give people their rights!
The People have always had their Rights and no one or no institution can give them to the People. You cannot give what you already have, first and in full.
The Bill of Rights articulated some rights – but it does not give, nor did it describe the full listing.
BF
Good morning my pirate friend. Hope your stove is working well this morning. Seems our muddy minds are operating almost in sync this morning:
Just A Citizen Says:
February 2, 2011 at 9:51 am
Truthseeker
Our given rights are NOT listed in the Bill of Rights. Only a few were listed there, the rest stand on their own.
Natural rights are the freedom of each man to act in accordance with his desires, as long as he does not impede upon the rights of others.
Thus natural rights involve a person’s choice to act or not act. They can not apply to the acquisition of a product/service or condition that is not natural in itself.
JAC…..stop it. USW cannot handle you and I and BF in agreement again…..it just isn’t right and USW will go into cardiac arrest, Canine Weapon will eat the neghbors cat, Matt will swill in RB wondering what is going on, DPM, having just returned from Gasparlla in Tampa, will pass out, and global warming will become fact. It just isn’t right.
By the way….chill factor in FTW is zero…..HEAR THAT???? FRIGGIN’ ZERO……That is well below the 85 threshhold that MAtt and I request and now order…ice…some snow….FRIGGIN ZERO…..in Texas. We don’t even know what a Parka is and if we wanted one….there ain’t none. Take this immoral, in sensitive, nasty assed weather away. Even the Packers walked off the plane going WTF?
Havre, Montana yesterday and today.
Wind chill at -50, calm temps at -30. And it is headed your way unless somebody can push some hot Gulf air up the slot.
BF and JAC, thanks for clarifying.
Other than freedom, is there natural rights that everybody agrees on? If so, then it would be easy to point out that anything else you have to earn or work for.
Why would people like Buck, Mathius, Ray and others feel that they are entitled to violating my rights to meet their supposed rights?
Because we don’t violate your rights just to meet our own rights.
We violate your rights to meet the rights of many.
It’s a balancing act, but in the end, the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few.
A thought experiment: If you could (assume perfect knowledge) kill one innocent person to save 1,000 innocent people, would you? The conservative line seems to be no because you have no right to kill that person and he has a right to life. The liberal line would be yes, because 1,000 people are more important than one person. Their collective rights to live outweigh the other person’s.
Mathius
You can not violate rights to meet the rights of others.
Either that which your are gaining or that which you are impairing is NOT a natural right.
Mathius
In your example, you can not claim the right to life and the right to kill an innocent person.
These are in conflict and thus negate each other. Thus BF’s law of mutuality.
Both have a right to life, but the action of a group to violate that right results in a breakdown of civilization. It authorizes the victims to do what is needed to gain the power to return the favor when they deem it in their interest to do so.
Natural rights are connected to the individual. There is no such thing as “collective” natural rights. The latter concept is in contradiction to the first.
That’s where we part ways. I say that there is such a thing as a collective right.
Imagine that one person is like a line, and that the number of points on that line is equivilent to the value of their rights.
How many points are there on a line? (Answer: infinite)
Society is nothing but a bunch of people. So we lay the lines side by side and get a plain.
How many points are there on a plain? (Answer: infinite)
But when we compare the two answers, we have to notice something. Infitity != Infinity.
So which is greater? Infinity(1) or Infinity(2)?
Mathius
Logic my dear lefty friend, logic.
A collective right is NOT a natural right. By definition, Natural Rights are linked to individual humans. Having more than one human does not change the nature of their natural rights.
If you add more marbles to the jar you have a jar full of marbles. You don’t suddenly have a single large marble.
And two points define a line. A line contains an infinite number of points, but each point is distinct as a POINT. The line is a new identity made up of individuals.
And a plane is defined by three points. Not two lines laying side by side. Again, individual points.
And of course, the fact that there are infinite points on a line or within a plane has absolutely nothing to do with “natural rights” of “human beings”. Which by the way are “finite”.
Mathius
One more important thing for you to consider.
You claimed earlier that Govt does not exist.
Yet now you claim Society not only exists but it has “rights” that are greater than those “individuals” who comprise this society.
If Govt does not exist for the reasons you stated, then society can not exist either.
I’m just trying to help you conceptualize it.
But maybe we just need to step back.
If you have a “natural right” and it has a value of X, then two other people with the same “natural right” have a value of X each.
Therefore: JAC has X and they have 2X.
Even if X approaches infinity, 2X>X.
So if you have a infinitely valuable right to life, two other people, combined, have twice that right. Therefore, given the choice between violating X or 2X, and given perfect knowledge, I have to say X.
I don’t know how else to say this that will better point out the evil in your thinking on this-Forgive me for being so blunt-but this whole premise is evil-Would you stand by while Hitler killed the Jewish people in order to protect yourself. It wasn’t one for a 1000, it was allowing the Jews to be exterminated so that the rest of the people could protect themselves. Different numbers, same premise. Let innocent’s die to protect yourself.
Different, and flawed premise.
The Jews were not a threat to the world.
The Jews were not poisoning wells.
The Jews were not deliberately sabotaging the economy.
The Jews were not “inferior” or “subhuman.”
The Jews were not conducting secret rituals with the blood of Christian newborns.
The Jews were scapegoats. An excuse. A way to segregate out a portion of society in order to focus blame and unify the rest. A way for Hitler to consolidate power.
I said, in my example, that we are assuming perfect knowledge. The Nazis didn’t have this. In fact, they deliberately lied and manipulated reality to suit there ends. This is not at all the same.
If God came down from on high and told us that we must kill all the Jews or he would destroy the Earth, and ignoring that his son was a Jew, would it not make sense to kill the Jews in order to save the planet? I think so. We are 13 million – the rest of the world is 6.4 billion. That’s 492 saved for every one killed. It doesn’t make it any less of a tragedy, but the truth is that 492 people have a collective greater right to life than any one person.
Of course God wouldn’t do this – the Jews are his favorites.
The reasoning behind why a group of people should be killed to save the rest doesn’t have to be true. People just need to be convinced that it is okay to kill 1 to save a 1000.
With a non-reversible error such as killing someone, I would typically require a very high standard of proof. Suspicion and rumor and demagoguery (as with the Nazis) would never measure up to the litmus test to justify the killing of an innocent person.
I was offering a thought experiment and I gave “perfect knowledge” as a premise – something that never exists in the real world. You seem to be deliberately ignoring this fact.
Just because people believe it is true does not make it right. I believe 1 + 1 = 17. Does that make it true?
Mathius
So given the criteria of your own example, no such right of the group to kill an individual exists.
Because such “perfect knowledge” is not achievable.
Yes………
I guess… this is somewhat ethereal.
But killing is a non-reversible error of the highest order.
Asked to assign values to one’s rights, property might have a finite value, but life would be asymptotically close to infinity.
Given this, the burden of proof to justify, say, taxes, is within the realm of possibility. Killing innocents, not so much. As I said, this was a thought experiment, not necessarily reflective of the real world.
I think this is very well written and easy to understand.
The Nuts and Bolts of the ObamaCare Ruling
According to the government’s theory, wrote Judge Vinson, ‘the more harm the statute does, the more power Congress could assume for itself under the Necessary and Proper Clause.’
By RANDY E. BARNETT
AND ELIZABETH PRICE FOLEY
For months, progressives smugly labeled the legal challenges to ObamaCare as “silly” or even “frivolous.” Today their confidence must be severely shaken.
Late Monday afternoon in Pensacola, Fla., U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson delivered the second major judgment that the centerpiece of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—the “individual mandate” that forces Americans to buy health insurance whether or not they want it—is unconstitutional.
In December, District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled against the mandate in a separate lawsuit brought by the state of Virginia. But Judge Vinson’s sweeping and powerfully reasoned decision this week went much further, striking down the entire health-reform law on the grounds that the individual mandate was not severable from the rest of the statute. And the plaintiffs in Judge Vinson’s courtroom included the attorneys general of 26 states, not just one. His opinion thus casts a dark shadow over ObamaCare until the Supreme Court issues a final ruling on the matter.
Consider the problems posed by the insurance mandate. The Obama administration argued that it was supported by the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. True enough, insurance is commerce, but not buying insurance is the antithesis of commerce. Commerce has always been understood as requiring economic activity. This was the rationale Judge Hudson adopted in striking down the individual mandate in the Virginia case.
The government’s lawyers in the Florida case insisted that not buying health insurance was somehow different from a failure to buy other products like clothes or food. They said health insurance was “unique” because, eventually, everyone will seek and obtain health care. And if they aren’t insured, the costs will be shifted onto others, thus substantially affecting commerce.
View Full Image
barnett
Associated Press
U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson
barnett
barnett
Judge Vinson rejected this argument, recognizing that “not consuming” other products, such as food, is also unavoidable and can have substantial effects on other commercial markets. “There is quite literally no decision that, in the natural course of events, does not have an economic impact of some sort,” he wrote. “The decisions of whether and when (or not) to buy a house, a car, a television, a dinner, or even a morning cup of coffee also have a financial impact that—when aggregated with similar economic decisions—affect the price of that particular product or service and have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.”
Recognizing the vulnerability of relying on the Commerce Clause alone, the Obama administration in the Florida case shifted its emphasis to the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution. That clause empowers Congress to enact “all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” its enumerated powers. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly explained, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not expand the scope of Congress’s enumerated powers. Instead, it gives Congress the ability to select among various means of exercising them—for example, the enumerated power to “establish post offices” necessarily and properly includes a power to print stamps.
The Obama administration claimed that the individual mandate is a necessary and proper means of carrying out its reforms in the health-insurance market. These reforms include requiring insurers to offer coverage to those with pre- existing conditions, to extend coverage to dependents up to age 26, and to eliminate lifetime coverage caps. Because these reforms make health insurance more expensive, the government’s lawyers claim that unless everyone is forced to buy health insurance, too many healthy people will sit on the market sidelines as “free riders” until they become ill. So in order to make the “reformed” health-insurance market work, it’s necessary and proper to force everyone to buy insurance.
Judge Vinson flatly rejected the administration’s attempt to escape the restrictions of the Commerce Clause by appealing to the Necessary and Proper Clause. His decision acknowledges that, while reforming an insurance market is a regulation of commerce, Congress cannot artificially create its own “free rider” crisis in the insurance market and then use that crisis to justify an otherwise unconstitutional mandate as “necessary and proper” to save the market from collapse.
This novel use of the Necessary and Proper Clause, if allowed to stand, would fundamentally transform our constitutional scheme from limited to unlimited federal power, narrowing the scope of individual liberty. In Judge Vinson’s words, “the more harm the statute does, the more power Congress could assume for itself under the Necessary and Proper Clause. This result would, of course, expand the Necessary and Proper Clause far beyond its original meaning, and allow Congress to exceed the powers specifically enumerated in Article I.”
Rep. Marsha Blackburn on the health-care ruling.
One crucial difference between the Florida and Virginia decisions relates to the breadth of the remedy. While both courts agreed that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, the Virginia decision merely declared the mandate alone to be unconstitutional—the rest of ObamaCare was unaffected. But Judge Vinson concluded that the individual mandate could not be “severed” from the rest of the law, and so the entire law must be struck down.
The judge had little choice: The Obama administration itself argued that the individual mandate was inextricably intertwined with the rest of ObamaCare. So if the mandate fell, the whole scheme was doomed to collapse as a legal matter. “There are simply too many moving parts in the Act and too many provisions dependent (directly and indirectly) on the individual mandate and other health insurance provisions,” he held, “for me to try and dissect out the proper from the improper, and the able-to-stand-alone from the unable-to-stand-alone.”
The Obama administration attempted to cloak an unprecedented and unsupportable exercise of federal power in the guise of a run-of-the-mill Commerce Clause regulation. When the weakness of that theory was exposed, it retreated to the Necessary and Proper Clause and the taxing power. Judge Vinson’s decisive rejection of all these theories is another significant victory for individual liberty—the ultimate purpose of federalism—and it lays the intellectual groundwork for every decision on the mandate yet to come.
Mr. Barnett is a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center. Ms. Foley is a professor of constitutional and health care law at Florida International University College of Law.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703445904576117913097891574.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
The only disagreement I have is the statement that “health insurance” falls under the meaning of “commerce”.
From the originalist viewpoint it clearly does not meet the definition of commerce.
It was in fact the expansion of the definition itself that has allowed Congress to expand its powers without our permission.
Anything can fall under “commerce” if you try hard enough.
In truth, Commerce is just an excuse to justify doing what they wanted to do because it was easier than getting an Amendment. Nobody actually believes that Health Care is really Commerce (except insofar as there is a business of providing and insurance health care).
It’s just an excuse.
Much like National Defense is the excuse for the highway system. They wanted to do it, so they stuck the round peg in the square hole.
Sometimes the SCOTUS allows it, sometimes not. That’s why there are three branches, not two.
Hidden in the Health Care Bill is a cleverly disguised addendum declaring that Red Bull is now governed under the commerce clause of the US Government and, therefore, is no longer a viable product to be replaced by Dr Pepper.
Mathius
Either you are not Mathius or the real Mathius truly can’t handle the foul weather.
You must be running a very high fever. Suggest you go home and rest.
Where is Mathius and what did you do with him? Please make this replacement permanent!!!
Mathius
All funning aside. I believe you have it right.
And that is why we are so screwed.
And why it makes it very hard to justify government in any form. They will always do what they want, pounding round pegs into square holes until they get to the point they fear for their “political lives”.
But you see, even in our form of govt, there is little for them to fear. They have stacked the deck in a way that allows them far greater flexibility than we would allow as individuals, but can be achieved by segregating us into groups.
It is true that they have acquired broader powers over the years than might have been initially intended.
However, I believe that, mostly, those powers are inline with the will of the people. SUFA is not indicative of the average American. Nor, for that matter, is Keith Olbermann. The average American wants government somewhere in the vicinity of where it is now in terms of size and scope.
When the government is perceived to have overreached, as may be the case with HCR, there is a negative feedback mechanism to force it back into line. That is, the Tea Party showed up and is forcing the pendulum to the right (right according to the JAC scale).
The People want a bigger government than was intended by the founding fathers (even though many do not realize it) – though not necessarily as large as it currently is. Perhaps this is the result of government brain-washing. Perhaps not. I can’t say with any conviction, but I don’t think you can either. If it’s too large, The People won’t allow it. Ultimately, all power comes from them.
Why are you back…bring back the other Mathius…
Sorry.. I hadn’t had my Red Bull yet..
I apologize…I should have realized. But it is notable that your Red Bull is…RED…as in red states…
It’s actually more of an amber color. Like a pale ale.
I will have to take your word on that…I do not drink the stuff. Try to stay warm up there…there is actually a possibility of freezing rain here tomorrow.
You should try it.. It’ll give you wings.
In anticipation of some questions as to my claim about the definition of commerce I offer you this small snippet from Mr. Natelson’s work, along with a link to the full document. For those who are snowed in and would like to dig deeper.
THE LEGAL MEANING OF “COMMERCE” IN
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
ROBERT G. NATELSON†
Commerce, (Commercium) Traffick, Trade or Merchandise in
Buying and Selling of Goods. See Merchant.
Merchant, (Mercator) Is one that buys and trades in any
Thing . . . . But every one that buys and sells is not . . . a
Merchant; only those who traffick in the Way of Commerce . . . .
Those that buy Goods, to reduce them by their own Art or
Industry . . . are Artificers and not Merchants . . . .1
I found that in the case law, judges and counsel used the
words commercium and “commerce” in ways similar to those that Professor Barnett identified in lay discourse. The Latin term, which always carries a sense of traffic or exchange,96 always was used that way in the cases—particularly being applied to merchants and their financial instruments.97 The more frequently used English word had, with rare exceptions, a similar meaning. It encompassed the buying and selling of items created by others,98 together with certain closely allied activities.
“Commerce” embraced the actions of merchants,99 factors
(commodity brokers),100 carriers,101 traffickers with foreign nations,102 and consignees.103 The courts connected shippers and navigators with “commerce,” and regulation of navigation was closely associated with regulation of commerce104—which shows that Chief Justice Marshall’s view of the matter in Gibbons v. Ogden105 was solidly supported by precedent.
This also answers a question Professor Mark R. Killenbeck’s posed a few years ago: How could the First Congress think it could regulate in detail the conduct of sailors unless it had adopted a “substantial effects” view of the commerce power?106 That answer is that there was no
need for a “substantial effects” test, for regulating navigation had long been part of regulating commerce.
Legal professionals frequently coupled “commerce” with
“traffic,” as in the phrase “traffic and commerce.”107 Less
commonly, they spoke of “commerce and intercourse.”108 The most common phrase of this sort was “trade and commerce”109— an expression that also appeared in the Articles of Confederation.110
When used alone, “trade” sometimes had a wider meaning
than “commerce.” This was particularly true in certain statutory contexts, where Parliament had defined “trade” or “trader” in a specific way. Thus, the bankruptcy statutes referred to a class of “traders” that included some artificers.111 Other statutes regulated the practice of some “trades”—meaning occupations.112
This occasionally-broader meaning of trade, however, seems not to have spilled over very much to the word commerce. Almost always, the meaning of that word was restricted to exchange and its instrumentalities. Some potentially gainful activities—such as gambling113 and operating the post office114— explicitly were excluded from commerce. Tradesmen were excluded from the class of “merchants” who carried on “trade and commerce.”115
Judges and lawyers referred to times or places in which there was gainful economic activity but no commerce,116 or
commerce but not some other gainful economic activity.117
http://constitution.i2i.org/sources-for-constitutional-scholars/legal-meaning-of-commerce-in-clause/
Good (late) Morning
All is well, except the road are not passible at the moment. The temp shot up from 28 to 38 around 5 am, thus reducing the ice on the trees and power lines. This rise in temp was not called for by the weather guessers. It seems, with all their computer technology, up to date satellite photos, and measuring instruments, they still can’t correctly predict the weather with a 100% certainty. This leads me to a conclusion, all the Global Warming or Climate Change, or whatever they want to call it this week, scientists and meteorologists, that claim they can predict the climate of the whole fracking planet a hundred years from now, are for lack of a better phrase, full of shit. I do feel sorry for the idiots that believe in these theories, if they would only realize that they can’t predict what is going to happen in 5 days, much less 50 years.
G!
WAAAAY to early to be logical.
Weather != Climate
But yes, anyone who says with certainty what the weather or climate will be like 100 years from now is a fool or a liar.
That doesn’t mean we’re not having an impact on the planet. Nor does it mean that the global warming crowd are wrong to want to curb emissions. It just means that they shouldn’t be so certain.
But let me remind you this: there is a big difference between trying to predict the individual tiny bumps of ups and downs along a time series and trying to forcast the path of the entire line. Sometimes the big picture is clearer.
What will the price of oil be tomorrow? The next day? The next? Don’t know? That’s ok. Maybe it’ll be up, maybe down. Commodity traders make their best guesses and, good ones anyway, will be mostly right most of the time. But not always – sometimes they’ll be wrong. But what about if I asked you what the price of oil will be in 15 years? You could probably make a very safe guess that it will be higher. Yes, maybe you’d be wrong, but which guess would you have more confidence in? Tomorrow’s price (ie, near-term weather forcast) or 15 years from now (ie, global climate change trends)?
Stop trying to conflate the two. You’re smarter than that.
Mathius
I agree. However, you must also admit that the Warmists are playing exactly the same game, while chastising their opponents for the same thing.
In the past couple of days Mr. Gore himself pointed to the weather as proof that the predicted effects of AGW are accurate and thus confirm the general AGW claim.
Yes, there is a term I heard for this, and I absolutely love it:
Global Worming
Both sides pull this BS when it suits their interests, and you, JAC, are often the first one to call them on it. So I find it interesting and, with all due respect, hypocritical for people here to play the other end just because “Al Gore does it too.”
Mathius
I agree there is more than enough hypocrisy to go around, and we should all guard against it.
I would like to offer one other thought, however. I think that some of those who made fun of global warming due to the last two winters were simply being sarcastic and having fun. They were not actually making claims that winter “proved” global warming a hoax. Beck was one of these, at least the few shows I heard him using it last year.
But then the warmers jumped on them like stink on you know what and used the routines as proof of deniers idiocy. I thought the ploy quite clever as it fit their general view that deniers and tea party folks are of the same ignorant/hillbilly ancestry. Great example of confirmation bias. Thus reducing anything presented by the deniers as “idiotic”.
On the other hand, there are certainly many who are using it in a way to make “regular folks” think the current cold is a proof of the AGW hoax.
There is plenty of “dishonesty” as well as “lack of knowledge” on both sides of this issue, in my humble opinion.
There is plenty of “dishonesty” as well as “lack of knowledge” on both sides of this issue, in my humble opinion. Then we agree.
And frankly, given the current weather right now, I wouldn’t mind a little global warming.
Mathius
In the long run, global warming would be much less destructive to humanity than global cooling.
That is a fact I will stand upon, tall and firm.
I don’t like the cold. You have my vote.
Only problem is that I can only remove so many layers of clothing before I’m in my birthday suit if the world gets too hot (though I’m good up to 115-ish). Appropriately attired, I’m probably safe up to 125-ish.
However, I can add and add and add layers if the world gets too cold. Appropriately attired, I’m probably save down to -60 (though I’d probably shoot myself first).
Matt, I’m stating fact, all meteorogical technological tools are used for both. One does not have any special advanced tools than the other. AGW is a fracking hoax, it is an issue to cause fear to steal money, nothing more, nothing less. CO2 has very, very, if any actual affect on climate. Despite the lies that you continue to hold too, it’s really simple: Climate = Sun and Lunar activity, which affects local weather patterns. Stop falling for the BS!
G-Man
I may be opening the proverbial can of worms but I caution you against such statements of certainty.
I think that AGW is possible, but I also think that CO2 is not the culprit, at least by itself or even a driver.
We see the effects at local and larger geographic scales. It is irrational to simply discard the idea that “cumulatively” these impacts may not affect large scale, global, climate or weather.
After all, climate is simply weather over the long term.
Thank you, JAC. That was well said.
I would only add that, cumulatively, climate is a system like any other. And systems, particularly large complicated systems, have weak spots where a small amount of something can cause a big change.
Just a tiny amount of arsenic, roughly 1 billionth of the size of a human will, will kill a healthy man. Applying your logic, G-Man, that arsenic can’t possibly have any effect because it is so small relative to the person.
I don’t speak with certainty either way, but I am always disconcerted by intelligent people who “know” the “truth” when the rest of the planet is still trying to reach a consensus.
Rumor has it that REd Bull is a detriment to climate and Dr Pepper is a benefit to climate.
Mathius
I have not found your statement to be true in my studies of nature.
“And systems, particularly large complicated systems, have weak spots where a small amount of something can cause a big change.”
This may be true when focusing on single or small groups of organisms, like a person (arsenic) or town of people.
But larger more complex systems generally absorb small changes without notice. We only think small changes make a difference because we miss the accumulation of changes that preceded the one we were watching.
The proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back” .
What percent of people living in the 13 colonies signed the Declaration of Independence?
Just a few people, in the right place, at the right time, doing the right thing, and the whole thing took off.
What percentage of people living in the 13 colonies originally supported the Union? Just a few percent, if I recall correctly. Small number, large system, large affect.
JAC,
But that is a huge misunderstanding of Climate systems.
You live on the Earth. It is a closed system. There is not more or less of anything then there was 10 million years ago. All that has changed is where it is. Thus, there is no such thing as a “growing accumulation”.
The system is a NEGATIVE feedback loop. The more something is done, the more it is undone.
It is a marble in a can on paint shaker – the more the marble bounces up, the sharper the walls on the can bounce the marble back to dynamic equilibrium.
Given the earth has suffered massive disturbances of multiple orders of magnitude over eons of time, there is no such thing as a “camel back”.
To claim a “straw can break it”, when it survived massive drops of tons of bricks before is bizarre.
Mathius,
*cough*
What “system” is climate like that you can take an example of cause/effect and then re-apply it to climate?
Bull crap!
You obviously do not understand one iota of feedback mechanisms.
The Earth is a massive negative feedback loop.
How do we know this?
We know this to be true because the Earth has had massive disruptions of magnitude (such as asteroid strike) and the Earth has NOT warped into a ball of ice or a ball of fire
Further, the law of Thermodynamics dictates that the further the disturbance moves a system from its dynamic equilibrium, the move vigorous the feedback to move to the dynamic equilibrium.
In other words, IF we were able to radically disturb the climate, the natural feedback loop would be equally radical in returning to dynamic equilibrium. A big push away will result in a big push back. A small push away will result in a small push back.
Thus, it is impossible for mankind to radically alter anything of climate systems due to the Natural Feedback loop in play
That is not any logic at all – for climate is NOT a single variable as is arsenic poison. There is NO feedback loop in arsenic – this is a LINEAR SYSTEM and predictable.
The “rest of the planet” – that is, 99.995% are scientifically and mathematically illiterate.
To suggest these are the ones who can “judge” scientific truth will definitely lead People to believing in ghost-like Father figure sitting in the sky determining human fate.
JAC,
Could the climate be warming? Sure. Could it be cooling? Sure. Can people stop either from happening, if people are the cause of either, NO! If people are the cause of Climate Change, warming or cooling, there is only one way that people can change these actions, Reduce the population!
That’s preposterous on it’s face.
If we are doing something to cause it, it is not our intrinsic existence, but something we are doing. If it is driving, for example, though it would suck, we could stop driving as much and reduce our effect without reducing the population.
Matt,
Pay attention to this. The Warmists want to, basically tax, CO2 emmisions, claiming that it will reduce CO2 emmisions. Those countries that entered the Kyota Protocol, did not reduce CO2 emmisions, despite the money spent that all but destroyed their economies. In fact, these countries, namely Japan, increased CO2 emmisions. The claim that CO2 emmisions are the cause of Global Warming, is in dispute. Many scientists are saying that warming is the pretext for more CO2 in the atmosphere. Hence, the sun, causes warming, which causes more CO2 in the atmosphere, not the warmist theory of CO2 causing warming. My God Man, it’s all for money, nothing else. As has been said many times, you want answers, follow the money!
Matt,
The one thing I see, and why I believe the way I do, is that AGW has become a political issue, not a humanity issue. It seems that it’s Left vs. Right. Let’s say, that hypothetically, ALL the scientists agree that the earth will warm and cause all the problems that have been stated. They would then present these findings to the leaders of the world and show the cause and recommended solution. If the scientific facts were indisputable, the leaders of the world would take steps to stave off the impending disaster, and probably do so without the peoples direct knowledge. Instead, we got a fat whale with a big mouth who made a movie to scare the shit out of people, so that they will push their respective governments to take action.
As you can see, a real disaster scenario, one that is absed on facts (think hurrican warnings), then the Govenment takes actions to prevent loss of life. Considering the impending doom that AGW has proposed, most Governments have done little or nothing. Maybe because 1. the science is not settled, 2. It’s a left wing ideology, and 3. the science has already been proven to be fixed to give a pre-disposed conclusion.
True, weather does not equal climate.
True, weather does not definitively prove the presence or lack of impact on the planet, or even the climate.
True, we impact the planet. To what extent it debatable, but we obviously change landscapes and have localized effects.
Do we affect climate? I do not think so, at least not global climate. We pollute, and that has an affect. We consume, and that has an affect. Those affects are NOT significantly climate changing.
My biggest issue with global warming is that it is not only a fraud, but a distraction. How many resources, energy, education, scientific study, etc. have been wasted on global warming that could have been devoted to clean up of pollutants (carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it is an essential component of our atmosphere, and a key ingredient of the most green thing on earth: photosynthesis), or to protecting our oceans, or to preserving pristine wilderness, or to improving technology to be more efficient. What is the real problem with global warming anyway? What is the fear? It is pretty obvious that the planet will be fine, that life here will be fine. In fact, in a warmer climate, life would thrive. So what is the big problem? Fear of change. People are afraid that they will have to move north, or love their beach houses. Or that some bad storm will wreck their stuff. It has nothing to do with caring for the earth, it is caring about your friggin stuff. It is a completely selfish thing. Global warming will not hurt the earth, it will hurt us.
Besides that is the fraudulent aspect. Even if there is a tiny impact, I can assure you that carbon dioxide is not comparable to arsenic. Maybe some other pollutant might be, maybe bad radiation from a nuclear war or something, but not “greenhouse gasses”. The climate system is not that fragile, what we know of earth’s history has shown that. The big factors, like the sun for instance, create huge changes in both weather and climate. Global warming is a waste, even for true environmentalists. It does more harm than good by distracting from real environmental issues. It has people doing bad things for the environment, like using toxic fluorescent bulbs, in the name of reducing a carbon footprint. We are carbon based, carbon is our friend, not our enemy.
Jon Smith
My dear sir. Your statement regarding certain clothing has me interested.
“Fur rocks.”
I was wondering where one might purchase these Fur Rocks. I see a great marketing potential that will far exceed the “Pet Rocks” of years gone by.
Best to you this fine chilly morning.
Indeed, there would be a massive market for fur rocks. Unfortunately, they are exceedingly rare. It is unknown whether the origin of fur rocks are from fossilized mammoths, or whether it is from the remains of ice-age-era stone golems. Either way, it seems no more are being created.
What is indisputable, however, is that they certainly make the best “heavy coats”. I defy anyone to find a heavier coat than one made from fur rocks!
If I can get enough materials together to make you such a coat, you can have it free of charge to keep you warm this winter. Unfortunately, I will have to charge for shipping, and that could be an ungodly sum….
Jon
Perhaps fur rocks are the remnants of the ancient practice of converting mammoth bulls into mammoth steers.
Perhaps one day I will cross your path and collect on that heavy coat. That will save you the shipping cost.
Do you think a 1 ton truck will allow me to carry it home?
That depends, what size coat do you wear?
Also, while your theory on the origin of fur rocks is sound, I hope it’s not true…..
And to confirm, JAC. Years ago I was given a pet rock and I must admit that it has been very well behaved. I put it on a shelf and ordered it to “stay”. It has not moved since.
Egyptians better beware…..THe Army is not takin sides….yet. The rioting can get so bad that the Army will step in….The Army does not suport Mubarak…nor does it support the rioters. The Army is dead set against the son of Mubarak being the successor….it has not been ordered in because it probably will not do so if ordered. BUt if the rioting gets so bad that the infrastructure is indeed going to be severly damaged…..beware. THey will move in decisively. Military coup not out of the question.
It’s interesting to note that this fighting began when the Mubarak supporters showed up. Hypothetically, if the Conservative right wing organized and put out huge numbers of people in D.C. and State capitals calling for the removal of our current regime, it is very likely that the Left wing Liberals would show up and the shit would hit the fan. Sadly, between the Govt. and the MSM, the divide and conquer ideology is alive and well in this country. This is why Govt. will continue to grow and become more intrusive in our lives.
Have a great day, Sir
As JAC said, the left are responsible for all the problems on this planet, and a vast majority of the violence. It’s a shame that they do not realize that they are the pawns of oppression.
@G-Man – sheesh man – that’s a rather strong statement?
“…the left are responsible for all the problems on this planet, and a vast majority of the violence….”
Maybe Mathius can write up a 12 step program for us to “de-left” ourselves. After all – admitting you have a problem (or are the cause of all problems) is the first step in recovery….
Ray,
Strong statement? You bet, but supported by history. For the record, I don’t consider you left wing, in the pretense of my statement.
1. Analyze the left-right spectrum. Where are you? Far-left.
2. What does being on the left offer you? “Moral” use of violence.
3. Use violence against everyone to the right of you.
4. Re-evaluate spectrum. There is no longer anyone to your right.
5. Re-calibrate spectrum. Where are you on the new spectrum? Rightwing extremist.
6. Problem solved, you have been “de-left”ed.
7-11. Tequila time?
12. Blame all problems in the world on the “new left.”
CNN anchor Anderson Cooper and his crew were attacked by pro-Mubarak supporters in Cairo on Wednesday, according to news reports. Cooper was hit in the head numerous times.
Cooper went on the air soon after the attack and appeared unhurt. “The crowd set upon us,” Anderson explained and added he and his crew were “kicked and punched pretty well … before the mob forced us to seek safety.”
The incident came as pro-Mubarak supporters attacked protesters calling for the Egyptian president to resign and leave the country. Speaking on “American Morning” after the attack, Cooper said that he and his crew had been trying to go to a neutral zone between the two groups.
On Tuesday, Human Rights Watch confirmed several cases of undercover police loyal to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s regime committing acts of violence and looting.
Left wingers beating on a left winger, how ironic!
Mathius,
They hold no leverage you did not -voluntarily- grant them.
Because you value the benefits more than the effort.
It has everything to do with your emotional attachments – you wouldn’t be there without, you wouldn’t stay without it.
Not even in the same Universe.
Yours with your mate was voluntary.
This with the State is involuntary.
Yours with your mate is mutual emotional benefit.
Yours with the State is not mutual, nor emotional, nor beneficial. It is involuntary, perverse and parasitic.
What a fantasy!
The People demand “no bailout” – yet, …..
The People demand “no Health Care” – yet,….
The People demand “no War” – yet….
Your theory rests on contradiction, confusion of motives, and fantasy.
BF
Or his assumption is correct but the people have been using the WRONG mechanism for making the politicians “fear for their jobs”!
The first crack in the theory is actually the acceptance of the concept that there is such a thing as “The People”.
Mathius,
For you to argue such a extreme belief, you need to provide extraordinary proof.
You have no such proof – indeed, we have overwhelming demonstration of precisely the opposite.
Yes, they are wrong
Their hypothesis has been proven wrong
Continuing to suggest to implement their solution to solve a problem that does not exist will create problems that are wholly unnecessary
That is simply false.
The long term picture includes an exponential number more of complex, chaotic equations that are simply unsolvable.
To claim a more complex problems is easier to solve is utterly bizarre.
The price of oil is such an insignificant problem to solve compared to climate. The number of variables are determined within human action.
Climate has an infinitely complex set of variables which most we do not even understand.
To argue that we can separate out of a chaotic system the degree of impact of human interaction with chaos is an argument of “impossible”.
My argument exactly. You are conflating two – completely different – understandings.
The danger you create: you are advocating for real human action to solve a problem that you cannot demonstrate exists whatsoever
I am arguing, Flag, that I do not know.
Let me repeat that: I. Do. Not. Know.
Got it?
Further, while I do not know if pollution et al causes global warming, or whether global warming exists, and if it exists, whether it is man-made, what I do know is that we are injecting huge quantities of “stuff” into the environment.
Is it enough to make a difference? I don’t know. Neither do you.
But should we be careful about it? I think so.
Let’s do some cost/benefit.
Flag (do nothing):
Upside if right – good for economy
Downside if wrong – massive global catastrophe (for humans, anyway)
Mathius (curb emissions):
Upside if right – save the world! (for humans, anyway)
Downside if wrong – probably bad for economy.
Seems like a gamble that makes sense to me, at least until we get a better handle on things.
Mathius,
IF you do not know, you cannot advocate for a change – because you do not know the consequences you will deliver
In your ignorance, you have seized arrogance – and in that arrogance, you will deliver disaster upon humanity.
Let me educate you and lift you out of ignorance.
The Anthropogenic Global Climate Change Hypothesis has been proven WRONG.
Now you know something.
It does not.
Now you know something more.
Of course it exists!!! Or else you would be living in the middle of a 5km thick piece of glacial ice! The global MUST HAVE warmed to melt the glaciers off of New York~!
If you do not know this, then you are even worse off then I thought….
There is NO scientific evidence or proof to demonstrate this – NONE, NADA, ZERO.
There is a hypothesis based on CO2.
This has been proven wrong scientifically based on physics experimentation. We DO KNOW how this works and it cannot be the cause of any global climate change – period.
Now you know 4 new things! You’re getting smarter!
“Huge”???? Compared to what???
The subjective garbage that your position requires…..
Humans are “injecting” a fraction (8%) of natural sources! To argue that such a small amount causes greater impact then “much more of the same stuff” from nature is utterly bizarre!
In fact I do because I do understand science and physics
You demand the acceptance of fantasy as a probability within the real Universe. But it is a fantasy.
We do know how Co2 “works” – we can determine its function and impact – and we do know human’s component.
We can accurately calculate such an impact and it is insignificant – which means, it cannot be measured because the impact is smaller than the natural variance – that is, our “signal” is overwhelmed by natural “noise”.
Yes – we have to be careful from creating terrible problems by attempting to solve problems created out of a fantasy.
False and dangerous fallacious argument
You have no measure or capacity to argue that (1) it would be massive (2) or catastrophic.
You are making up a fantasy and offering it as a real argument. This is your continuing error.
You demand your fantasy must be accepted to be real – yet you nor anyone on earth can demonstrate one shred of realty of your fantasy
Thus, you demand action -which are real actions impacting real people to resolve a fantasy of your own mind.
You are a gambler. You believe you influence the Roulette wheel or the role of a dice by a fantasy believing you have “figured out” a system of the Universe that predicts random events.
I am NOT a gambler.
Mathius,
IF you do not know, you cannot advocate for a change – because you do not know the consequences you will deliver
In your ignorance, you have seized arrogance – and in that arrogance, you will deliver disaster upon humanity.
Let me educate you and lift you out of ignorance.
The Anthropogenic Global Climate Change Hypothesis has been proven WRONG.
Now you know something.
It does not.
Now you know something more.
Of course it exists!!! Or else you would be living in the middle of a 5km thick piece of glacial ice! The global MUST HAVE warmed to melt the glaciers off of New York~!
If you do not know this, then you are even worse off then I thought….
There is NO scientific evidence or proof to demonstrate this – NONE, NADA, ZERO.
There is a hypothesis based on CO2.
This has been proven wrong scientifically based on physics experimentation. We DO KNOW how this works and it cannot be the cause of any global climate change – period.
Now you know 4 new things! You’re getting smarter!
“Huge”???? Compared to what???
The subjective garbage that your position requires…..
Humans are “injecting” a fraction (8%) of natural sources! To argue that such a small amount causes greater impact then “much more of the same stuff” from nature is utterly bizarre!
In fact I do because I do understand science and physics
You demand the acceptance of fantasy as a probability within the real Universe. But it is a fantasy.
We do know how Co2 “works” – we can determine its function and impact – and we do know human’s component.
We can accurately calculate such an impact and it is insignificant – which means, it cannot be measured because the impact is smaller than the natural variance – that is, our “signal” is overwhelmed by natural “noise”.
Yes – we have to be careful from creating terrible problems by attempting to solve problems created out of a fantasy.
False and dangerous fallacious argument
You have no measure or capacity to argue that (1) it would be massive (2) or catastrophic.
You are making up a fantasy and offering it as a real argument. This is your continuing error.
You demand your fantasy must be accepted to be real – yet you nor anyone on earth can demonstrate one shred of realty of your fantasy
Thus, you demand action -which are real actions impacting real people to resolve a fantasy of your own mind.
You are a gambler. You believe you influence the Roulette wheel or the roll of a dice by a fantasy believing you have “figured out” a system of the Universe that predicts random events.
I am NOT a gambler.
Mathius,
Exactly the evil!
You believe 1,000 people are MORE IMPORTANT than one person – thus, you justify killing innocent people.
But once you justify killing innocent people, you have justified killing anyone or in what ever number of people to meet your goal.
The great trap: the test is the justification.
The end DOES NOT justify the means
The means justifies the ends
Yes, 1000 people may die because of “an act of evil” – but YOU killing an innocent person makes you the evil – …
….you become the very thing you are trying to save others from….
No, flag, it is a question of choosing the lesser of two evils.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is not evil.
Did you ever see Sofie’s Choice? Was she evil for choosing one child to live, thus sentencing the other to death? No. She did the math, realized that two dead is worse than one dead, and picked.
Mathius,
What a contradiction!!
“A choice between evils does not choose evil!”
I am often amazed you survive given such mindless confusion that swirls inside you sometimes.
It is NOT a choice of lessor of two evils.
It is a choice of becoming the evil you are trying to avoid or not
That is exactly my point! You are so confused.
(1) She did not create the situation.
(2) She is not the one killing anyone.
(3) She is not choosing to kill anyone.
(4) She is saving someone from dying.
(5) She is NOT killing an innocent person, someone else is doing all the killing.
Vs. your hypothetical
(1) You did not create the situation
(2) YOU ARE KILLING an innocent person.
(3) YOU ARE CHOOSING to kill the innocent person
(4) You MAY safe someone.
(5) YOU ARE THE KILLER, and no one else is killing that person.
You do the math to figure out where the evil is.
Mathius
I must run to a meeting but let me address your x and 2x for now.
Two people with equal rights is NOT 2x. That is the first error.
Their rights do not multiply in effect and by definition their rights do not conflict with each other.
Therefore, 2 people with the same rights can not exceed one person with the same rights.
You have to justify this argument by placing values on things with no value. Or at least values which are unique to each person. I value my rights very highly compared to others, for example.
If you want to claim that more lives will be saved if one life is sacrificed that is certainly a possible fact. But you can not claim that more rights are saved or that the rights of many outweigh the rights of one. Their natural rights are equal and non-contradictory.
And for the record, a right to life does not mean you have a right to be alive. It means you have a right to control the destiny of your own life. It means the STATE, nor any other man, has no claim upon your life, only you have that claim.
I leave you with this mental exercise.
Assuming we all believe that the death of a few hundred could save millions, do you think that those who subscribe to the “original” ethic of Altruism would VOLUNTEER in droves to be among the few hundred?
If not, then does this say anything about the validity of the ethic?
I’ll have to dig it up later for you, but just such a situation presented itself in Russia in the 1700′s.
A pandemic broke out in a Russian town and was, of course, blamed on the Joooooooooos. A pogrom followed, in due course, but because the disease had killed so many, the Jews feared that they would be murdered en masse. The town leaders agreed that if the culprits presented themselves for punishment, that they would spare the rest of the Jews.
One man, an old rabbi took the blame, but town leaders insisted that there must be at least 5 culprits. Four other men stepped forward immediately and were all summarily executed.
Now, this has passed into legend, so of course, there’s some coloring going on here, but I recall that it is largely grounded in historical fact.
Obviously, the they men were not to blame, but they volunteered to sacrifice them to save the rest.
This has happened in other times and in other places among other groups, I’m sure.
What about soldiers who volunteer for suicide missions because they believe they will save lives? What about suicide bombers who are fighting a “holy” war to protect their friends and families?
People will lay down their lives for others given the proper situation, but they will require a big counterweight to the value of their lives.
Altruism is alive and well.
One factor, they decided for themselves.
True. But that wasn’t the question he asked.
Mathius
Then we don’t need government.
The Progressives can volunteer to sacrifice themselves for the rest of us.
The military “suicide” mission doesn’t really fit your example, by the way. There never has been a true suicide mission I am aware of in US History. Very, very, very, bad odds, but always a chance of survival.
And usually military sacrifice can be tied to love and brotherhood with fellow soldiers, not the well being a complete strangers (society).
Unfortunately, it doesn’t work if just the liberals sacrifice. We all have to sacrifice. So we drag you guys along for the ride, kicking and screaming.
Well this is interesting……
WikiLeaks Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
A Norwegian lawmaker has nominated WikiLeaks for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize, stating that the secret-spilling website is one of the most important contributors to freedom of speech in the 21st century.
Lawmaker Snorre Valen said that by disclosing information about corruption, human rights abuses and war crimes, WikiLeaks is a “natural contender” for the peace prize.
WikiLeaks, founded by Australian Julian Assange, has released hundreds of thousands of classified documents leaked to the website. The documents have included thousands of classified U.S. diplomatic cables, as well as confidential material on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Members of parliament from all nations, political science and law professors, and previous winners may all submit nominations to the Nobel Peace Prize.
Assange is currently free on bail in Britain, while he fights extradition to Sweden for questioning on charges of sexual misconduct.
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/WikiLeaks-Nominated-for-Nobel-Peace-Prize-115110634.html
Ray
Serious question here. Have you, or anyone else, actually seen anything released by WikiLeaks that has done what this guy claims?
I have yet to read or hear about anything released that was earth shaking or a major revelation.
@JAC – You’re referring to Valen’s statements correct? I think that at least the Iraqi video of the civilians being killed would qualify. Maybe the case is overstated – would have to search for something more specific to justify the grandiose statements.
Ray
Yes. I have heard others claim they have uncovered all these evil doings, like the “war crimes” yet all I find is sizzle.
No Steak that I can find. Personally I hope they do have some really good and condemning stuff. People might wake up to just how out of control our Govt and major institutions have become.
Got milk anyone? To be fair the EPA has “crossed their heart and hoped to die” promised to exclude milk from this requirement. There is a WSJ on line article about this but I am not a subscriber so if any of you are, cut and paste the story as I would like to read it.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/02/epa-now-regulate-spilled-milk-really
Want a good laugh?
http://damnyouautocorrect.com/
This is amazing.
I had to stop reading it at my desk.. people are looking at me while I’m cracking up..
Funniest. Shit. Ever!
I am crying from laughing, I haven’t done that in ages.
http://damnyouautocorrect.com/4779/egyptian-queen/
Happy New Years Eve, everyone..
4708 – Rabbit
Happy New Year to see too!
What does 4708-Rabbit mean?
Chinese New Year. It’s the year of the Rabbit.
The important thing to note is that it’s 4708 in China, and 5771 in the Jewish calendar.
This means that, for 1,063 years, the Jews had to go without Chinese food on Christmas.
Xin Nian Kuai Le!
This is a long article, well worth reading by all. Here’s a few paragraphs with the link.
Mike Adams
Natural News
Feb 2, 2011
Federal Judge Roger Vinson ruled this week that the “individual mandate” portion of Obama’s health care reform was unconstitutional, dealing a significant blow to the Obama administration’s desire to force government-run health insurance on the entire U.S. population. Department of Justice spokespeople reacted with a sense of twisted desperation, calling Judge Vinson’s decision “judicial activism” as if he were inventing new law. In reality, of course, Judge Vinson merely ruled to protect existing law as written in the United States Constitution.
Three years ago, even President Obama would have agreed with Judge Vinson’s decision. In arguing against the idea of an individual mandate in government-run health insurance, President Obama said in 2008, “If a mandate was the solution, we can try to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.”
Obama’s quote demonstrates the ludicrousness of the federal government requiring people to buy certain products or services in order to solve what the government perceives as a problem. If the government is allowed to dictate commercial behavior by forcing citizens to purchase things they don’t want to purchase, then it won’t be long before Washington starts forcing everybody to buy a U.S.-made automobile each year to support the auto industry… or pharmaceuticals, vaccines, and other products and services the government wants to push onto the people.
Judge Vinson cited this same argument in his 78-page ruling, in fact, writing:
“Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile — now partially government-owned — because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/with-obamacare-ruled-unconstitutional-states-embrace-limits-on-federal-power.html
I’m greatly enjoying watching and reading about all the conservatives upholding this decision (where the judge completely eradicated 2 centuries of legal precedent, applied the wrong standard, refused to apply SCOTUS caselaw) as a shining example of why the mandate, and the health law as a whole, must be unconstitutional, while at the same time completely ignoring the several decisions which found the mandate in particular, and the law as a whole, a constitutional exercise of congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce.
It’s also fun to watch more and more conservative constitutional and legal scholars come out against Vinson’s decision due to its horrendous application (or downright failure to apply) precedent. For instance, see:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02/027814.php
Buck
You continue to be dishonest about the basis of the Judges decision.
So is this your inherent bias clouding your ability to read the words or do you simply refuse to accept them.
Or are you deliberately trying to distort for the fun of it?
It is easy to see the distinctions between your cited reference and the actual statements made by the judge.
Furthermore, there is a distinct difference in the issues of this legislation and those of the cases cited by your defender.
What I have read of the Florida Judge’s decision is well thought out and just as supported by past rulings as you claim your argument is supported.
Forcing someone to participate in commerce, or fining them for not participating, is NOT the same as regulating existing commerce.
The govt’s argument that regulations were needed was predicated on the situation created by the bill itself, not those existing prior to its passage.
In what way am I being dishonest about the basis of Vinson’s decision?
Vinson completely neglects precedent and fails to properly apply the Necessary and Proper clause to his analysis.
It is a good example of an activist judge at work – trying in vain to reach his preconceived decision.
Why do you think so many conservative attorneys and legal scholars are coming out against the decision??
JAC, I think you could be a little more careful about accusing people of dishonestly around here.. you may disagree, but do you really think he’s being dishonest?
Do you think he spends his time (which he should be billing for, btw) coming here and debating issues and is being dishonest? What would be the point of lying to complete strangers who, in all likelihood, are never going to agree with you anyway? That would have to be the dumbest use of time ever.
Mathius
I assure you I never accuse someone of dishonesty without careful consideration first.
The actual words of the Judge have been posted here and on other sites. But the Left is hell bent on portraying this judge as some “activist”. But the accusation is based on completely ignoring the context of his actual words.
So yes, dishonest. Either to one self or to others.
There is no dishonesty here JAC, and you know it.
If anything it is you and others who are being dishonest by failing to even consider why so many conservative scholars – who are against the health care law as a bad policy idea – have come out to criticize Vinson’s ruling.
Keep posting the Judge’s words – it makes for interesting reading and he does make some interesting arguments. But the fact remains that Vinson failed to apply prior precedent and erred in his application of the law.
Also, how is Vinson not acting as an activist judge in this decision?
I’ve long said there are activist judges on both sides of the political spectrum. How do you reach the conclusion that Vinson is not being ‘activist’?
Buck
The Judge clearly stated that he found the provision to be a violation of the authority given under the commerce clause.
Thus the necessary and proper provision does not apply.
Yet you continue to argue that he ignored 200 years of precedent relative to the necessary and proper clause.
As the Judge stated, if the commerce clause is violated then the necessary and proper test is inapplicable.
It was the Gov that argued the entire bill was tied to this single provision. It was the Govt that argued the provision was not severable. The judge agreed.
That is what his words say. If I am not understanding his plain words then show me where. Otherwise explain why you continue to portray his decision in a light that is not consistent with his own words.
The only debate here should be over whether Congress had the authority to impose this restriction under the commerce clause.
I do find it funny how most everyone simply accept the premise that health insurance is commerce. A truly activist judge would have declared the entire concept as false.
78 pages of dense legal opinion is a lot to get through while at work and even harder to get through at home.
On which page(s) did Vinson apply the commerce clause and find it inapplicable? From my understanding he never did this, at least not properly.
The issue is whether the commerce clause allows Congress to regulate the health care/insurance industry. Assuming it does, the next issue is applying the necessary and proper clause — Congress can use any method it deems appropriate to carry out and effectuate its regulations under the commerce clause, including an individual mandate, as precedent on the necessary and proper clause maintains.
Under constitutional jurisprudence you never ask the question of whether forcing people to purchase insurance (the mandate) violates the commerce clause. You ask whether forcing people to purchase insurance is a constitutional means of congress exercising its authority to regulate health care under the commerce clause.
It seems to me that Vinson answered a question that doesn’t exist!
Let’s see a show of hands.. everyone who has passed the bar raise your hand..
My boss just walked by my office as I had my hand raised…
That’s hysterical!
Did you try to pass it off like you were stretching?
But of course.
I haven’t
Most of this Congress and every Congress before them has, and we have a 14 trillion dollar debt, Illegally invaded Iraq, which Congress approved, and we are being led to massive inflation. Any more questions?
Yes, just because they did stupid stuff means you’re better at interpreting the law than they are? That’s how your logic works?
Not really
However, I do study case law, and have for several years. That matters not, because my logic is that even the best lawyers will apply the left/right paradigm, depending on which side their on, into their thinking. Divide and conquer!
They did stupid stuff like make stupid laws. It would stand to reason that those people making the laws could interpret those laws better. But I dont think they are very qualified to interpret laws passed back before there was a bar to pass.
I pass the bar all the time. Occasionally i stop in instead, but usually I pass it…
here, here!
So now we are back to that age old guild protection stuff I see.
No pedigree then you have no credibility.
You do realize don’t you that those who study law do not have to take the bar to discuss the law. It is a mechanism to control the number of “practicing” attorneys.
Buckster,
My best guess is it will come down to a SCOTUS ruling. But you keep going on about legal precedent. Just how many times have the government madated the purchase of a specific product in the last two centuries? I’m curious, because I know of no such acts, but think that this case will certainly set that precedence, quite clearly.
um… car insurance?
Yes, it’s tied to an activity that you can opt out of it, but are you really going to nit-pick?
And do you think SCOTUS will like a district court judge ignoring their past rulings?
A District Judge is supposed to apply the text of the constitution, text of statutes, AND PRIOR CASE LAW, to a given set of facts. Vinson failed to do this task.
I think the SCOTUS will take that ruling and shove it up the lower court’s stare decisis..
I wouldn’t be surprised. SCOTUS may be conservative at the moment, but they don’t like being ignored by a lowly district court judge either…
What past rulings? Their are no past rulings refering to the governments power to mandate the purchase of anything by the entire nation. If you can find one, on that specific subject, post a link.
You don’t know for sure, anymore than I do.
There have been times they used it as an opportunity to second guess themselves.
In fact, such an ignoring of precedence by the FDR court was used to create the modern interpretation of the commerce clause, which you so warmly accept.
Matt, The Feds do not mandate car insurance, the states do, and it within their supposed authority.
Buck,
I asked a rather simple question: Just how many times have the government madated the purchase of a specific product in the last two centuries?
The liberal readings of case law and implying that it within the powers given by the Constitution don’t fly with me. Since you failed to answer my simple question, I will help. The answer is NO! Never in the past two centuries have the Feds mandated the purchase of a specific product, and my lawyer friend, that is the only important precedent that needs addressed.
Go a little past two centuries — there was the mandate of insurance to be carried by sea-goers (or something to that effect) and there was the mandate for everyone to own a gun.
And even if Congress never required anyone to do anything (which is not the case), that would still not be the end all answer to the question. Because something wasn’t done in the past doesn’t mean it is unconstitutional to do now. Past precedent would still need to be applied to the current fact pattern.
Buckster,
there was the mandate of insurance to be carried by sea-goers . You are correct, but that did not apply to the whole nation, and it’s Constitutionality was never questioned. It ended up a failure by the way.
there was the mandate for everyone to own a gun.
Yep, Not currently a law, nor was it questioned in a court.
Because something wasn’t done in the past doesn’t mean it is unconstitutional to do now.
Nor does it make it constitutional. That is the 64,000 question.
Past precedent would still need to be applied to the current fact pattern.
As I stated, there is NO past precedent on the subject.
Past precedence is a BS argument anyway.
Fifty years from now, will someone be arguing precedence using The Unpatriotic Act, and Obummer-care to call something “Constitutional”?
Buck, I I get sick or injured, I go to the nearest hospital or doctor, which for a vast majority of people, is in their home state. At this point I am engaging in commerce, but not interstate commerce, but rather intrastate commerce. Here’s a SCOTUS ruling on the powers of Congress related to intrastate commerce.
Houston East and West Texas Railway Company v. United States
APPEALS FROM THE COMMERCE COURT
——————————————————————————–
Argued: October 28, 29, 1913 — Decided: June 8, 1914
——————————————————————————–
The object of the commerce clause was to prevent interstate trade from being destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local governments, and it is the essence of the complete and paramount power confided [p343] to Congress to regulate interstate commerce that, wherever it exists, it dominates.
Wherever the interstate and intrastate transactions of carriers are so related that the government of the one involves the control of the other, it is Congress, and not the State, that is entitled to prescribe the final and dominant rule; otherwise the Nation would not be supreme within the National field.
While Congress does not possess authority to regulate the internal commerce of a State, as such, it does possess power to foster and protect interstate commerce, although, in taking necessary measures so to do, it may be necessary to control intrastate transactions of interstate carriers.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0234_0342_ZS.html
How does my getting health care in my state constitute interstate commerce?
Health care is not an intrastate affair.
Even if your individual example was completely confined to a single state, as Scalia himself put it:
“Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even . . . activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.”
How does a going to a hospital in your home state affect interstate activity, in your view? (note- trying to learn here, not trying to argue)
Interesting SCOTUS holding on “compelling the actions of an individual:
8) Congress cannot invade state jurisdiction by purchasing the action of individuals any more than by compelling it. P. 73.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0297_0001_ZS.html
Apparently, there is precedence already in place concerning the Feds compelling of ones actions!!!!
Same link, about the General Welfare clause.
(12) If the novel view of the General Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, that clause would not only enable Congress to supplant the States in the regulation of agriculture and of all other industries as well, but would furnish the means whereby all of the other provisions of the Constitution, sedulously framed to define and limit the power of the United States and preserve the powers of the States, could be broken down, the independence of the individual States obliterated, and the United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the Union superseding all local control over local concerns. P. 75.
If….excepted. after those words, the remainder of the paragraph is a complete look at the liberal interpretion of the General welfare clause, and that’s why the SCOTUS did not rule for the Feds.
Buck,
your justification is circular. You cannot pass a law of regulation that creates a dependency on some new government power and justify it based on the commerce clause. It is possible to develop a convoluted justification for just about anything if you permit the needs of a law to create the need for some expansion of power. In other words, you claim that the mandate is essential to the regulation of health care because of the way this bill was termed. It is essential to this bill but not to the regulation of health care as a whole. Therefore, justifying the individual mandate based on precedence of SCOTUS decisions that state that power of the commerce clause includes actions essential to the execution of regulations, when the regulations themselves are in question. The individual mandate is only essential to this law as written, not to the regulation of interstate health care commerce action.
Jon you are misapplying the law.
The mandate does not need to be essential to the regulation of health care. The mandate only needs to be a reasonable means of the constitutional regulation of health care.
Firstly, how does one determine “reasonable”? I certainly would not consider an unprecedented mandate forcing purchase on all citizens unless they meet the standard of and accept government assistance to be “reasonable”.
Furthermore, you are saying that it is reasonable to enforce purchase BECAUSE it is essential to the operation and cost affects of this particular health care plan. The creation of a plan that depends on such an invasion of individual rights cannot be used as the justification for said invasion. You cannot declare was and then demand taxpayer money and lives to invade and justify the requirement for such a demand on the citizens by the need to support your declaration of war. Your entire justification process is smoke and mirrors and circular logic. It is a process of finding a way to justify the law and sneak it past the constitution, rather than an honest and up-front approach to the intent of the law, of the constitution, and the validity of the solution being offerred, or even the validity of the problem that is supposedly being solved.
Gentlemen, we can fix this issue rather easily – pass an amendment that either:
1. restricts the scope and applicability of the Commerce Clause, or
2. removes the Commerce Clause as an enumerated power from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution (and prohibits Congress from interfering in Commerce between the states).
I can be persuaded to support either option.
The we can all be friends again right?
How about an amendment that reads: No law shall be passed and all laws will be recinded, that impedes, restricts or otherwise denies the citizens of their natural, unalienable rights. 8)
How bout we just put a period after recinded and be done with it.
SIMPLE! No deep thinking required. I keep telling you guys I’m way ahead of you!!!!!!!
OK, I’m good with that. On a side note, what are the odds that this SCOTUS ruling from the above post hits the MSM within two day?
SCOTUS: Congress cannot invade state jurisdiction by purchasing the action of individuals any more than by compelling it. P. 73.
Does anyone realize that the US is currently in a “State of Emergency”?
State of Emergency
The United States has been in a declared state of emergency from September 2001, to the present. Specifically, on September 11, 2001, the government declared a state of emergency. That declared state of emergency was formally put in writing on 9/14/2001:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/america-might-be-a-more-gilded-cage-than-egypt-but-it-is-still-a-cage.html
This is another long article, but worth reading.
AHHHHHHH!
What color is the terror alert?
I have to change my big-boy underwear.
Interesting aspect still developing in Egypt. Wish to see what anarchy does? Just watch. So far anarchy has pitted civilian against civilians, stealing from their own, burning down others property, etc. Even if Mubarak comnes out this very minute and says he will leave office…the violence will escalate. The Egypian government has collapsed….who takes over if not the military? The anarchists are rioting and looting….the power vacuum will not be the people but will be the next power broker which, I fear, will be more brutal and more repressive than Mubarak.
Colonel,
Not sure where your getting your news, but I don’t see this as Anarchy, by any stretch. As I see it, The oppressive government and a dictator, are using their monopoly on violence against a peacefull people who just want freedom. The violence began when the peacefull protesters (the right wing) was attacked by the oppressive loving Mobarak supporters (left wing). Thsi is a political event, not anarchy. However, I will agree that the military should step in and calm things, Mubarak should be gone, but he’s using violence to hold power, don’t ya just love the lefties?!!
G man….no news. I just have a lot of experience in these matters especially where the mideast is concerned…and no, I have not ever started or participated in such….what started out peaceful, in my opinion, has turned to violence but not as a result of the progovernment marchers. It is easy to see what is happening on the surface and the MSM spin on things. There are a lot of so called experts onb Fox, CNN, MSN that are no more exeprt than you are. These so called “contributors” are simply not experts. The academia that teaches in our universities are furhter from expert than the contributors are. BF and I are probably more expert than 90% of what is on the news. We see different viewpoints but until one has been on the street and in the gutters and in the stores….their expertise is limited to briefings from…their government and ours. ( I am sure that BF will agree ). I will bet that he rolls his eyes as much as I do when I see or hear Bolton or Stephapoopoo or any of those so called experts.
I think this has turned to anarchy and not just a demonstration.
And as much as I hate it…..the Army will probably have to step in but not at the request of Mubarak….I think that there is a ery strong probability that a military government will ensue……I hope that I am wrong…I really hope that I am not reading this correctly….but the seeds are sewn, I am afraid.
D-13 and G-Man
If you haven’t read this already then I suggest you take the time.
I found it most enlightening and made much more sense than what is being presented in the media.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/the_story_of_the_egyptian_revo.html
So far governments have pitted civilian against civilians, stealing from their own, burning down others property, etc. too.
Mathius? Please explain……
http://godlessliberals.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50%3Araptor-jesus-died-for-your-sins&catid=38%3Apix-&Itemid=58
Disturbing. It would explain a great deal though…
JAC,
Well I sure hope so!
We’ve been in an inter-glacial period (meaning Global Warming) for the last 30,000 years – we better hope we are still warming, because the alternative is Glaciation.
But knowing Mathius, he will blame that -too- on humans.
Flag, stop being dense.
Mathius,
That is about the extent of a scientific argument I’ve come to expect from you.
BF: “But knowing Mathius, he will blame that -too- on humans.”
Mathius.. from much earlier: “Let me repeat that: I. Do. Not. Know.
Got it?”
Now stop being obtuse.
Mathius,
Yet, I educated you, but you still have not learned.
I am not obtuse –
ignorance is no sin.
Refusing to leave ignorance is.
And that statement would be true no matter who said it, it’s the Al Gore’s claiming the science is settled who are off base. No one can say with 100% assurance how much of climate change is natural and how much is caused by mankind’s influence. History and the data I have read does indicate our part in this is very minor, much less a factor than sun cycles or orbital cycles.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/01/is-the-university-of-virginia-biased-against-professors-that-challenge-the-idea-of-global-warming/
YES.
I would rather have warming than cooling.
At least until it gets like Texas where ever you live.
Then cooling would be OK for awhile.
found at John Lott’s
It seems every time someone repels a burglar or thief, he ends up in court, too.
Consider the case of David Chen, the Toronto grocer who was acquitted last year of assault and unlawful confinement for detaining a career criminal he caught shoplifting from his store. Crown prosecutors had so convinced themselves that Chen’s defensive actions posed a greater threat to public order that they offered a lighter sentence to Anthony Bennett, the shoplifter, in return for his testimony against Chen.
If officials aren’t out to end the right to self-defence, why would they side with criminals against law-abiding citizens?
The latest example of the campaign against self-defence comes from southern Ontario. About six years ago, Ian Thompson moved to a rural property near Port Colborne to find peace and quiet. Almost immediately, he had a run-in with his neighbour over the neighbour’s unwillingness to keep his chickens in his own yard. Ever since, tension between the two has escalated.
Then, early one Sunday morning last August, three masked men showed up outside Thompson’s home and started lobbing Molotov cocktails at the house while Thompson was inside. A former firearms instructor, Thompson took a revolver from his gun safe, loaded it, then went outside and fired two or three shots in the direction of the arsonists. Thompson has surveillance cameras around his property. When he gave tapes to police to aid their search for the firebombers, police charged him with pointing a firearm and careless storage of firearms.
Officers also turned up at his home and confiscated his collection of seven firearms and seized his firearms licence.
Police are so opposed to citizens defending themselves that even if criminals show up at your rural home, and try to burn it to the ground with you inside, you are considered the criminal if you shoot at them.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/Canadians+never+gave+right+self+defence/4194599/story.html#ixzz1CqJeWWoL
Mathius,
Back to your kill innocent people to save innocent people.
A trolley is running out of control down a track.
In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher.
Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety.
Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track.
Should you flip the switch or do nothing?
A utilitarian view asserts that it is obligatory to flip the switch. According to simple utilitarianism, flipping the switch would be not only permissible, but, morally speaking, the better option (the other option being no action at all).
An alternate viewpoint is that since moral wrongs are already in place in the situation, flipping the switch constitutes a participation in the moral wrong, making one partially responsible for the death when otherwise the mad philosopher would be the sole culprit.
An opponent of action may also point to the incommensurability of human lives.
Under some interpretations of moral obligation, simply being present in this situation and being able to influence its outcome constitutes an obligation to participate. If this were the case, then deciding to do nothing would be considered an immoral act if one values fives lives more than one.
The initial trolley problem becomes more interesting when it is compared to other moral dilemmas.
One such is that offered by Judith Jarvis Thomson:
As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people.
You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five.
Should you proceed?
Resistance to this course of action seems strong; most people who approved of sacrificing one to save five in the first case do not approve in the second sort of case.
This has led to attempts to find a relevant moral distinction between the two cases.
One clear distinction is that in the first case, one does not intend harm towards anyone – harming the one is just a side effect of switching the trolley away from the five. However, in the second case, harming the one is an integral part of the plan to save the five.
Thomson argues that an essential difference between the original trolley problem and this version with the fat man, is that in the first case, you merely deflect the harm (BF: your Sofie’s choice) whereas in the second case, you have to do something to the fat man to save the five. (BF: you killing innocent person)
Thomson says that in the first case, nobody has any more right than anyone else not to be run over, but in the second case, the fat man has a right not to be pushed in front of the trolley.
Mathius,
…and why I worry about your mind “health”…. for you do not see the difference between the two scenarios, yet… a study shows, quote:
The trolley problem was first imported into cognitive science from philosophy in a systematic way by John Mikhail,who began testing trolley problems on different groups of people, including children and people from non-Western cultures, when he was a visiting graduate student in MIT’s Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences.
Mikhail hypothesized that factors such as gender, age, education level, and cultural background would have little influence on the judgments people make, in part because those judgments are generated by an unconscious “moral grammar” that is analogous in some respects to the unconscious linguistic grammars that support ordinary language use.
Preliminary results pointed in that direction, and Mikhail’s initial findings have been confirmed and expanded to more than 200,000 individuals from over 100 countries.
(sarc on)
Flag,
The fat man only has rights SOMETIMES…depending on cost/benefit ratio analysis.
If he is more beneficial to society, if his life has more value than the other five people combined, then he has a right to live.
(sarc off)
I would choose to do nothing as it was not my choice to setup the situation. If I chose to flip the switch, then that means i now own the situation and responsbile for killing the 1 individual. Therefore my answer is that I would wish for the best and do nothing as I am not responsible.
Mathius Says:
February 2, 2011 at 9:37 am
I’m not interested in headlines and retracted headlines. Nor am I interested in opinions and cherry-picked excerpts and blurbs. Do you have a link to the video itself – I’ll make up my own mind, thank you.
http://liveaction.org/blog/planned-parenthood-aids-sex-ring-full-footage/
The edited video presentation can be found here and the unedited footage can be found here.
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/#ixzz1CqWVScq5
Buck
I am curious-you are arguing that the mandate to make people buy insurance is Constitutional-but do you have any concern that extending this specific type of power to the government is unwise based on your individual rights. Are you concerned that if they can make us buy insurance -they could use this case to extend this power to other things that you may not believe is Constitutional. Do you put any weight in the argument that they are overstepping based on the intent of the Constitution to limit government power? Even broad powers shouldn’t mean limitless power.
Whether or not the mandate is a wise or unwise policy decision is very different from whether or not the mandate is constitutional.
This is pretty cool.
http://www.jacquielawson.com/viewcard.asp?code=1221321706636&source=jl999