2014 Midterms Thread

by

by Ugh

A thread to discuss the elections today specifically and our glorious experiment in representative democracy generally.  I guess things won't heat up until the polls start closing tonight, but it would be irresponsible not to speculate!  I know, not a traditional use of the internets, but let's try and break new ground.

This, of course, is a nice lead up to the 2016 POTUS party.  We might learn – should the GOP get a majority in the Senate – whether the Republicans are responsible enough to govern the country.  And by govern I don't mean "adopt my preferred policy positions," but things like not having people like Bradley Schlozman and Monica Goodling fill important positions at the DOJ.  Or think that FEMA is a good place to park super unqualified hacks – after 9/11 no less.

Beyond those specific examples, I guess I also mean a general recognition that government is currently set up to do certain things and, even if you think the government shouldn't be doing those things, a lot of people are relying on the government continuing to do them competently and so purposely wrecking from the inside shouldn't be an option – as opposed to coming up with a plan to wind things down publicly and responsibly.

Obviously my view is that no such evidence will emerge from a GOP controlled Senate and we're far more likely to get the opposite.  But it will, uh, be interesting nonetheless.

What say you?

783 thoughts on “2014 Midterms Thread”

  1. Chuck Todd listed the following as the “bellweather” races:
    Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, MaineMassachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming

  2. Chuck Todd listed the following as the “bellweather” races:
    Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, MaineMassachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming

  3. Chuck Todd listed the following as the “bellweather” races:
    Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, MaineMassachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming

  7. I take small comfort in this, via Washington Monthly:
    http://www.nationaljournal.com/political-connections/the-tectonic-plates-of-2014-20141103
    This midterm is pretty normal, numbers-wise.
    Of course, a Philadelphia newspaper ran this ditty before the 1919 World Series of Black Sox fame:
    Still, it really doesn’t matter,
    After all, who wins the flag.
    Good clean sport is what we’re after,
    And we aim to make our brag
    To each near or distant nation
    Whereon shines the sporting sun
    That of all our games gymnastic
    Base ball is the cleanest one!
    They should have replayed that Series, just to get a little closer to the sweet naivety of that poem.
    Given the dark, lying vermin money advantage, the number of likely democratic voters deprived of the vote in many states, and the gerrymandered violence-threatening, racist, little hitlers being thrust upon us, I want a do over of this election too.

  8. I take small comfort in this, via Washington Monthly:
    http://www.nationaljournal.com/political-connections/the-tectonic-plates-of-2014-20141103
    This midterm is pretty normal, numbers-wise.
    Of course, a Philadelphia newspaper ran this ditty before the 1919 World Series of Black Sox fame:
    Still, it really doesn’t matter,
    After all, who wins the flag.
    Good clean sport is what we’re after,
    And we aim to make our brag
    To each near or distant nation
    Whereon shines the sporting sun
    That of all our games gymnastic
    Base ball is the cleanest one!
    They should have replayed that Series, just to get a little closer to the sweet naivety of that poem.
    Given the dark, lying vermin money advantage, the number of likely democratic voters deprived of the vote in many states, and the gerrymandered violence-threatening, racist, little hitlers being thrust upon us, I want a do over of this election too.

  9. I take small comfort in this, via Washington Monthly:
    http://www.nationaljournal.com/political-connections/the-tectonic-plates-of-2014-20141103
    This midterm is pretty normal, numbers-wise.
    Of course, a Philadelphia newspaper ran this ditty before the 1919 World Series of Black Sox fame:
    Still, it really doesn’t matter,
    After all, who wins the flag.
    Good clean sport is what we’re after,
    And we aim to make our brag
    To each near or distant nation
    Whereon shines the sporting sun
    That of all our games gymnastic
    Base ball is the cleanest one!
    They should have replayed that Series, just to get a little closer to the sweet naivety of that poem.
    Given the dark, lying vermin money advantage, the number of likely democratic voters deprived of the vote in many states, and the gerrymandered violence-threatening, racist, little hitlers being thrust upon us, I want a do over of this election too.

  10. Obviously my view is that no such evidence will emerge from a GOP controlled Senate and we’re far more likely to get the opposite.
    Based on wj’s thread, it doesn’t seem like many commenters disagree. If the republican’s are going to make an honest try at governing, this is pretty much their chance. Control of both houses (probably, but you never know) against an unpopular president.
    If they wish to remain a relevant party moving forward, they will propose reasonable legislation over the next two years.
    But I doubt they will. I’m on the fence if they’ll be able to pass a budget.

  11. Obviously my view is that no such evidence will emerge from a GOP controlled Senate and we’re far more likely to get the opposite.
    Based on wj’s thread, it doesn’t seem like many commenters disagree. If the republican’s are going to make an honest try at governing, this is pretty much their chance. Control of both houses (probably, but you never know) against an unpopular president.
    If they wish to remain a relevant party moving forward, they will propose reasonable legislation over the next two years.
    But I doubt they will. I’m on the fence if they’ll be able to pass a budget.

  12. Obviously my view is that no such evidence will emerge from a GOP controlled Senate and we’re far more likely to get the opposite.
    Based on wj’s thread, it doesn’t seem like many commenters disagree. If the republican’s are going to make an honest try at governing, this is pretty much their chance. Control of both houses (probably, but you never know) against an unpopular president.
    If they wish to remain a relevant party moving forward, they will propose reasonable legislation over the next two years.
    But I doubt they will. I’m on the fence if they’ll be able to pass a budget.

  13. the GOP will always be a relevant party. conservatism is not going away and it needs a party to represent it.

  14. the GOP will always be a relevant party. conservatism is not going away and it needs a party to represent it.

  15. the GOP will always be a relevant party. conservatism is not going away and it needs a party to represent it.

  22. conservatism is not going away and it needs a party to represent it.
    True. But that doesn’t mean it will always be the RNC. If they can’t govern effectively, their donors will turn away, as will their voters.
    If the leadership doesn’t rein in the extreme wing of the party, it will push the party into irrelevance as national demographics shift.
    I already know people that consider themselves conservative and end up voting Dem. Not because they view the Democratic party as conservative, but because they view the national republicans as far-out and impractical.
    Granted, that’s in CA, so maybe not representative of the nation. But still…the demographics aren’t going to get better for the extreme wing of the GOP.

  23. conservatism is not going away and it needs a party to represent it.
    True. But that doesn’t mean it will always be the RNC. If they can’t govern effectively, their donors will turn away, as will their voters.
    If the leadership doesn’t rein in the extreme wing of the party, it will push the party into irrelevance as national demographics shift.
    I already know people that consider themselves conservative and end up voting Dem. Not because they view the Democratic party as conservative, but because they view the national republicans as far-out and impractical.
    Granted, that’s in CA, so maybe not representative of the nation. But still…the demographics aren’t going to get better for the extreme wing of the GOP.

  24. conservatism is not going away and it needs a party to represent it.
    True. But that doesn’t mean it will always be the RNC. If they can’t govern effectively, their donors will turn away, as will their voters.
    If the leadership doesn’t rein in the extreme wing of the party, it will push the party into irrelevance as national demographics shift.
    I already know people that consider themselves conservative and end up voting Dem. Not because they view the Democratic party as conservative, but because they view the national republicans as far-out and impractical.
    Granted, that’s in CA, so maybe not representative of the nation. But still…the demographics aren’t going to get better for the extreme wing of the GOP.

  25. And as I write, Count has provided a link that brilliantly describes the split:
    But Jon Hunstman Sr., a self-described “lifelong Republican”
    […]
    Huntsman says he “not a great handicapper” but thinks Hillary “would be a fine President.”

  26. And as I write, Count has provided a link that brilliantly describes the split:
    But Jon Hunstman Sr., a self-described “lifelong Republican”
    […]
    Huntsman says he “not a great handicapper” but thinks Hillary “would be a fine President.”

  27. And as I write, Count has provided a link that brilliantly describes the split:
    But Jon Hunstman Sr., a self-described “lifelong Republican”
    […]
    Huntsman says he “not a great handicapper” but thinks Hillary “would be a fine President.”

  28. “…by govern I don’t mean “adopt my preferred policy positions,” but things like not having people like Bradley Schlozman and Monica Goodling fill important positions at the DOJ.”
    I think you’re injecting your “preferred policy positions” here, as any TeaBagger true-believer would tell you, but incoherently.

  29. “…by govern I don’t mean “adopt my preferred policy positions,” but things like not having people like Bradley Schlozman and Monica Goodling fill important positions at the DOJ.”
    I think you’re injecting your “preferred policy positions” here, as any TeaBagger true-believer would tell you, but incoherently.

  30. “…by govern I don’t mean “adopt my preferred policy positions,” but things like not having people like Bradley Schlozman and Monica Goodling fill important positions at the DOJ.”
    I think you’re injecting your “preferred policy positions” here, as any TeaBagger true-believer would tell you, but incoherently.

  31. If they can’t govern effectively, their donors will turn away, as will their voters.
    but who “they” are changes every few years. every election cycle new candidates pop up and convince the money people that they can lead the country to glory.
    “The current GOP isn’t fighting hard enough! Help me get to DC and I’ll fix it, because I’m a True Conservative™!”
    there will always be new people to step up and promise whatever people with money want to hear.

  32. If they can’t govern effectively, their donors will turn away, as will their voters.
    but who “they” are changes every few years. every election cycle new candidates pop up and convince the money people that they can lead the country to glory.
    “The current GOP isn’t fighting hard enough! Help me get to DC and I’ll fix it, because I’m a True Conservative™!”
    there will always be new people to step up and promise whatever people with money want to hear.

  33. If they can’t govern effectively, their donors will turn away, as will their voters.
    but who “they” are changes every few years. every election cycle new candidates pop up and convince the money people that they can lead the country to glory.
    “The current GOP isn’t fighting hard enough! Help me get to DC and I’ll fix it, because I’m a True Conservative™!”
    there will always be new people to step up and promise whatever people with money want to hear.

  34. The biggest speculation I have is that the GOP has made the mistake of not lowering expectations. That is, with everybody talking about them taking control of the Senate, if they gain a half dozen seats, but fail to take control, it will be seen as a disaster.
    Whereas, with a little smarter messaging up front, it could be seen as a victory because they gained so many seats. Yes, given where the available seats are, they ought to gain enough seats to take control. But smart messaging is not about reality. It is about expectations. And there is where they goofed.

  35. The biggest speculation I have is that the GOP has made the mistake of not lowering expectations. That is, with everybody talking about them taking control of the Senate, if they gain a half dozen seats, but fail to take control, it will be seen as a disaster.
    Whereas, with a little smarter messaging up front, it could be seen as a victory because they gained so many seats. Yes, given where the available seats are, they ought to gain enough seats to take control. But smart messaging is not about reality. It is about expectations. And there is where they goofed.

  36. The biggest speculation I have is that the GOP has made the mistake of not lowering expectations. That is, with everybody talking about them taking control of the Senate, if they gain a half dozen seats, but fail to take control, it will be seen as a disaster.
    Whereas, with a little smarter messaging up front, it could be seen as a victory because they gained so many seats. Yes, given where the available seats are, they ought to gain enough seats to take control. But smart messaging is not about reality. It is about expectations. And there is where they goofed.

  46. The fix is in:
    Georgia
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/georgia-republican-secretary-of-states-voter-info-website-abruptly-crashes-on-election-day/
    Do ya think the media, especially FOX News, will report the crash of the website like they did the Obamacare website, for months on end?
    In Texas, you can use your gun permit as I.D. to vote, but not your college voting I.D.
    Another thing I want the President to do tomorrow: order the distribution of AR-15 automatics and ammo to every registered Democrat and independent in the country and declare THOSE the only credential required at the ballot box.

  47. The fix is in:
    Georgia
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/georgia-republican-secretary-of-states-voter-info-website-abruptly-crashes-on-election-day/
    Do ya think the media, especially FOX News, will report the crash of the website like they did the Obamacare website, for months on end?
    In Texas, you can use your gun permit as I.D. to vote, but not your college voting I.D.
    Another thing I want the President to do tomorrow: order the distribution of AR-15 automatics and ammo to every registered Democrat and independent in the country and declare THOSE the only credential required at the ballot box.

  48. The fix is in:
    Georgia
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/georgia-republican-secretary-of-states-voter-info-website-abruptly-crashes-on-election-day/
    Do ya think the media, especially FOX News, will report the crash of the website like they did the Obamacare website, for months on end?
    In Texas, you can use your gun permit as I.D. to vote, but not your college voting I.D.
    Another thing I want the President to do tomorrow: order the distribution of AR-15 automatics and ammo to every registered Democrat and independent in the country and declare THOSE the only credential required at the ballot box.

  49. Proposed: American politics is really in effect more of a sport than a serious endeavor.
    I’d say that’s the national GOP’s view of things these days. The whole point is to win the election, rather than it being a means to some other end. Or at least they end they’re seeking is something other than running the country.

  50. Proposed: American politics is really in effect more of a sport than a serious endeavor.
    I’d say that’s the national GOP’s view of things these days. The whole point is to win the election, rather than it being a means to some other end. Or at least they end they’re seeking is something other than running the country.

  51. Proposed: American politics is really in effect more of a sport than a serious endeavor.
    I’d say that’s the national GOP’s view of things these days. The whole point is to win the election, rather than it being a means to some other end. Or at least they end they’re seeking is something other than running the country.

  52. I’d say that the GOP would prefer to leave the running of most of the country to the states, and streamlining the Federal government so as to minimize the occurrence of redundancy, but the GOP managed to cough up the Department of Homeland Security and other monstrosities.
    I conclude by professing no certainty at all as to what the GOP is really up to, or what it wants.
    On the hopeful side, the GOP seems to be morphing itself into something that could answer to “no organized political party” that has no goals beyond the repeal of PPACA.

  53. I’d say that the GOP would prefer to leave the running of most of the country to the states, and streamlining the Federal government so as to minimize the occurrence of redundancy, but the GOP managed to cough up the Department of Homeland Security and other monstrosities.
    I conclude by professing no certainty at all as to what the GOP is really up to, or what it wants.
    On the hopeful side, the GOP seems to be morphing itself into something that could answer to “no organized political party” that has no goals beyond the repeal of PPACA.

  54. I’d say that the GOP would prefer to leave the running of most of the country to the states, and streamlining the Federal government so as to minimize the occurrence of redundancy, but the GOP managed to cough up the Department of Homeland Security and other monstrosities.
    I conclude by professing no certainty at all as to what the GOP is really up to, or what it wants.
    On the hopeful side, the GOP seems to be morphing itself into something that could answer to “no organized political party” that has no goals beyond the repeal of PPACA.

  55. there’s not much hopeful about yanking the insurance coverage out from underneath millions of people without having some kind of idea as to how to replace it.
    nihilism only gets you so far.

  56. there’s not much hopeful about yanking the insurance coverage out from underneath millions of people without having some kind of idea as to how to replace it.
    nihilism only gets you so far.

  57. there’s not much hopeful about yanking the insurance coverage out from underneath millions of people without having some kind of idea as to how to replace it.
    nihilism only gets you so far.

  58. but who “they” are changes every few years.
    Sure. But as the demographics shift, the ‘they’ that is willing to support the extreme wing of the GOP shrinks.

  59. but who “they” are changes every few years.
    Sure. But as the demographics shift, the ‘they’ that is willing to support the extreme wing of the GOP shrinks.

  60. but who “they” are changes every few years.
    Sure. But as the demographics shift, the ‘they’ that is willing to support the extreme wing of the GOP shrinks.

  64. the ‘they’ that is willing to support the extreme wing of the GOP shrinks.
    sounds like wishful thinking, IMO.

  65. the ‘they’ that is willing to support the extreme wing of the GOP shrinks.
    sounds like wishful thinking, IMO.

  66. the ‘they’ that is willing to support the extreme wing of the GOP shrinks.
    sounds like wishful thinking, IMO.

  67. I though I commented already, but apparently not.
    I’m back from my 5:15am-8:45pm shift as a pollworker. Young’s Double Chocolate Stout and a bacon cheeseburger are my just rewards.
    Turnout was very high for a midterm election, possibly because the weather was *perfect*, possibly because the Congressional race was for an open seat.
    Best part: our oldest voter turned *100* in September. She is what my dad would call “a corker”. “Spry” doesn’t begin to describe it — she *drove herself* to the polls, can still see/hear/walk with the best of 80-year-olds. When her age you are, look so good you will not — she’s merely “old-lady wrinkled”, not the hyper-wrinkled normal for centenarians. And she’s plenty cheerful and shares her opinions with all & sundry.
    Meanwhile, her descendants — of which there are many in the district — are frankly looking a bit worn by her celebrity, and by the fact that people keep talking about her and asking for her opinions & insights. And yes, everyone in the polling place applauded when she came out of the voting booth.

  68. I though I commented already, but apparently not.
    I’m back from my 5:15am-8:45pm shift as a pollworker. Young’s Double Chocolate Stout and a bacon cheeseburger are my just rewards.
    Turnout was very high for a midterm election, possibly because the weather was *perfect*, possibly because the Congressional race was for an open seat.
    Best part: our oldest voter turned *100* in September. She is what my dad would call “a corker”. “Spry” doesn’t begin to describe it — she *drove herself* to the polls, can still see/hear/walk with the best of 80-year-olds. When her age you are, look so good you will not — she’s merely “old-lady wrinkled”, not the hyper-wrinkled normal for centenarians. And she’s plenty cheerful and shares her opinions with all & sundry.
    Meanwhile, her descendants — of which there are many in the district — are frankly looking a bit worn by her celebrity, and by the fact that people keep talking about her and asking for her opinions & insights. And yes, everyone in the polling place applauded when she came out of the voting booth.

  69. I though I commented already, but apparently not.
    I’m back from my 5:15am-8:45pm shift as a pollworker. Young’s Double Chocolate Stout and a bacon cheeseburger are my just rewards.
    Turnout was very high for a midterm election, possibly because the weather was *perfect*, possibly because the Congressional race was for an open seat.
    Best part: our oldest voter turned *100* in September. She is what my dad would call “a corker”. “Spry” doesn’t begin to describe it — she *drove herself* to the polls, can still see/hear/walk with the best of 80-year-olds. When her age you are, look so good you will not — she’s merely “old-lady wrinkled”, not the hyper-wrinkled normal for centenarians. And she’s plenty cheerful and shares her opinions with all & sundry.
    Meanwhile, her descendants — of which there are many in the district — are frankly looking a bit worn by her celebrity, and by the fact that people keep talking about her and asking for her opinions & insights. And yes, everyone in the polling place applauded when she came out of the voting booth.

  73. Well, now we will see what kind of laws the Republicans really care about passing. No excuses for why bills didn’t go anywhere.

  74. Well, now we will see what kind of laws the Republicans really care about passing. No excuses for why bills didn’t go anywhere.

  75. Well, now we will see what kind of laws the Republicans really care about passing. No excuses for why bills didn’t go anywhere.

  76. sounds like wishful thinking, IMO.
    Maybe, but shifting demographics hurting the GOP is hardly a belief that is unique to myself.
    No excuses for why bills didn’t go anywhere.
    Yep. I *hope* the GOP decides to govern. I am not optimistic. But if they do something functional, they might even have a shot in 2016.

  77. sounds like wishful thinking, IMO.
    Maybe, but shifting demographics hurting the GOP is hardly a belief that is unique to myself.
    No excuses for why bills didn’t go anywhere.
    Yep. I *hope* the GOP decides to govern. I am not optimistic. But if they do something functional, they might even have a shot in 2016.

  78. sounds like wishful thinking, IMO.
    Maybe, but shifting demographics hurting the GOP is hardly a belief that is unique to myself.
    No excuses for why bills didn’t go anywhere.
    Yep. I *hope* the GOP decides to govern. I am not optimistic. But if they do something functional, they might even have a shot in 2016.

  82. But if they do something functional, they might even have a shot in 2016.
    Maybe they’ll pass a bill to privatize Social Security. If Obama feels nasty, he might let that become law without his signature. Think how that might play in the 2016 elections.

  83. But if they do something functional, they might even have a shot in 2016.
    Maybe they’ll pass a bill to privatize Social Security. If Obama feels nasty, he might let that become law without his signature. Think how that might play in the 2016 elections.

  84. But if they do something functional, they might even have a shot in 2016.
    Maybe they’ll pass a bill to privatize Social Security. If Obama feels nasty, he might let that become law without his signature. Think how that might play in the 2016 elections.

  85. Well, now we will see what kind of laws the Republicans really care about passing.
    Yes, the next two years should be very interesting.
    Maybe they’ll pass a bill to privatize Social Security.
    My guess is that they don’t have the guts to try that on, appealing as it might be to some of them.
    It’s one thing to propose legislation when you know it won’t go anywhere. It’s another to do so when it might actually come to a vote and be passed.
    Then, you own it.
    All of that said, I don’t see anything as beyond possibility. I’m not sure the leadership in either the House or the Senate is going to be able to maintain any kind of discipline over the bomb-throwers.

  86. Well, now we will see what kind of laws the Republicans really care about passing.
    Yes, the next two years should be very interesting.
    Maybe they’ll pass a bill to privatize Social Security.
    My guess is that they don’t have the guts to try that on, appealing as it might be to some of them.
    It’s one thing to propose legislation when you know it won’t go anywhere. It’s another to do so when it might actually come to a vote and be passed.
    Then, you own it.
    All of that said, I don’t see anything as beyond possibility. I’m not sure the leadership in either the House or the Senate is going to be able to maintain any kind of discipline over the bomb-throwers.

  87. Well, now we will see what kind of laws the Republicans really care about passing.
    Yes, the next two years should be very interesting.
    Maybe they’ll pass a bill to privatize Social Security.
    My guess is that they don’t have the guts to try that on, appealing as it might be to some of them.
    It’s one thing to propose legislation when you know it won’t go anywhere. It’s another to do so when it might actually come to a vote and be passed.
    Then, you own it.
    All of that said, I don’t see anything as beyond possibility. I’m not sure the leadership in either the House or the Senate is going to be able to maintain any kind of discipline over the bomb-throwers.

  91. wj: “Well, now we will see what kind of laws the Republicans really care about passing. No excuses for why bills didn’t go anywhere. ”
    Fox News will scream about Democrat party “filibusters”, that consist of a single Democrat senator asking a single, short question.
    They’ll also call upon Obama to “declare war on ISIS”, even though that is a Congressional power, in the certain knowledge that the US electorate is too ignorant and the US media is too supine, to call them on it.

  92. wj: “Well, now we will see what kind of laws the Republicans really care about passing. No excuses for why bills didn’t go anywhere. ”
    Fox News will scream about Democrat party “filibusters”, that consist of a single Democrat senator asking a single, short question.
    They’ll also call upon Obama to “declare war on ISIS”, even though that is a Congressional power, in the certain knowledge that the US electorate is too ignorant and the US media is too supine, to call them on it.

  93. wj: “Well, now we will see what kind of laws the Republicans really care about passing. No excuses for why bills didn’t go anywhere. ”
    Fox News will scream about Democrat party “filibusters”, that consist of a single Democrat senator asking a single, short question.
    They’ll also call upon Obama to “declare war on ISIS”, even though that is a Congressional power, in the certain knowledge that the US electorate is too ignorant and the US media is too supine, to call them on it.

  94. They’ll also call upon Obama to “declare war on ISIS”

    Nah, they’ll just sit back and snipe during the next two years of foreign policy fail. I don’t think anyone has any better ideas, including better policy ideas, so that is what I am going with.
    My guess is also that overall the GOP is going to suddenly realize they don’t have any good ideas and hire some Idea Men to help out with that.
    I also don’t have any good ideas in terms of policy, but I have other responsibilities.

  95. They’ll also call upon Obama to “declare war on ISIS”

    Nah, they’ll just sit back and snipe during the next two years of foreign policy fail. I don’t think anyone has any better ideas, including better policy ideas, so that is what I am going with.
    My guess is also that overall the GOP is going to suddenly realize they don’t have any good ideas and hire some Idea Men to help out with that.
    I also don’t have any good ideas in terms of policy, but I have other responsibilities.

  96. They’ll also call upon Obama to “declare war on ISIS”

    Nah, they’ll just sit back and snipe during the next two years of foreign policy fail. I don’t think anyone has any better ideas, including better policy ideas, so that is what I am going with.
    My guess is also that overall the GOP is going to suddenly realize they don’t have any good ideas and hire some Idea Men to help out with that.
    I also don’t have any good ideas in terms of policy, but I have other responsibilities.

  100. they don’t need good ideas, they have resentment and ignorance on their side.
    why bother with ideas when you can just scream about ISIS death panels coming to give you gay ebola?

  101. they don’t need good ideas, they have resentment and ignorance on their side.
    why bother with ideas when you can just scream about ISIS death panels coming to give you gay ebola?

  102. they don’t need good ideas, they have resentment and ignorance on their side.
    why bother with ideas when you can just scream about ISIS death panels coming to give you gay ebola?

  112. Not looking good for the democrats.
    the midterm curse is a pretty tough one. and only one president since 1938 has had a net gain of Congressional seats in his 2nd term: Clinton (+5 House, 0- Senate).
    every other president has lost seats.

  113. Not looking good for the democrats.
    the midterm curse is a pretty tough one. and only one president since 1938 has had a net gain of Congressional seats in his 2nd term: Clinton (+5 House, 0- Senate).
    every other president has lost seats.

  114. Not looking good for the democrats.
    the midterm curse is a pretty tough one. and only one president since 1938 has had a net gain of Congressional seats in his 2nd term: Clinton (+5 House, 0- Senate).
    every other president has lost seats.

  115. Russell: by wj and slarti’s definitions, I’m a conservative.
    Not to worry. I get accused of being a liberal from time to time. Mostly by those who are conservatives only by redefining the word.
    No liberal would ever make that mistake. At most, one might say “Well, but you’re a tolerant conservative.” It says something about what “conservative” has come to mean in America that this is considered anomalous.

  116. Russell: by wj and slarti’s definitions, I’m a conservative.
    Not to worry. I get accused of being a liberal from time to time. Mostly by those who are conservatives only by redefining the word.
    No liberal would ever make that mistake. At most, one might say “Well, but you’re a tolerant conservative.” It says something about what “conservative” has come to mean in America that this is considered anomalous.

  117. Russell: by wj and slarti’s definitions, I’m a conservative.
    Not to worry. I get accused of being a liberal from time to time. Mostly by those who are conservatives only by redefining the word.
    No liberal would ever make that mistake. At most, one might say “Well, but you’re a tolerant conservative.” It says something about what “conservative” has come to mean in America that this is considered anomalous.

  121. So, as an aside, anybody else pleased that all three marijuana ballot measures passed?
    Are we finally starting to unwind the massive failure that is the war on drugs? Or are these just hiccups that will not lead to real reform?

  122. So, as an aside, anybody else pleased that all three marijuana ballot measures passed?
    Are we finally starting to unwind the massive failure that is the war on drugs? Or are these just hiccups that will not lead to real reform?

  123. So, as an aside, anybody else pleased that all three marijuana ballot measures passed?
    Are we finally starting to unwind the massive failure that is the war on drugs? Or are these just hiccups that will not lead to real reform?

  127. Legalization passed in Florida — in the sense that it got 58% of the vote. It’s just that the measure failed to get the required 60%.
    So a failure, but hardly an endorsement for keeping marijuana illegal.

  128. Legalization passed in Florida — in the sense that it got 58% of the vote. It’s just that the measure failed to get the required 60%.
    So a failure, but hardly an endorsement for keeping marijuana illegal.

  129. Legalization passed in Florida — in the sense that it got 58% of the vote. It’s just that the measure failed to get the required 60%.
    So a failure, but hardly an endorsement for keeping marijuana illegal.

  130. Yep.
    I’m not a big fan of amending the constitution through ballot measures. It may have to come to that from time to time, but most often what you get is a constitution the size of Texas.
    The legislature should handle this one. Actually, the US Congress should freaking step up and handle it. Classify it as a controlled substance similar to alcohol, limit sales to minors and then let ‘er rip.

  131. Yep.
    I’m not a big fan of amending the constitution through ballot measures. It may have to come to that from time to time, but most often what you get is a constitution the size of Texas.
    The legislature should handle this one. Actually, the US Congress should freaking step up and handle it. Classify it as a controlled substance similar to alcohol, limit sales to minors and then let ‘er rip.

  132. Yep.
    I’m not a big fan of amending the constitution through ballot measures. It may have to come to that from time to time, but most often what you get is a constitution the size of Texas.
    The legislature should handle this one. Actually, the US Congress should freaking step up and handle it. Classify it as a controlled substance similar to alcohol, limit sales to minors and then let ‘er rip.

  133. All three? The Florida one didn’t pass.
    Whoops, my mistake. I was thinking D.C., Alaska, and Oregon. Forgot about Florida.

  134. All three? The Florida one didn’t pass.
    Whoops, my mistake. I was thinking D.C., Alaska, and Oregon. Forgot about Florida.

  135. All three? The Florida one didn’t pass.
    Whoops, my mistake. I was thinking D.C., Alaska, and Oregon. Forgot about Florida.

  136. Actually, the US Congress should freaking step up and handle it.
    Yeah. But I’m doubtful. It’s terrible policy that destroys lives and wastes money, but nobody wants to be tied to standing up for people who do drugs.
    It’s like adultery is still a felony in 5 states ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#United_States ). Stupid law that never gets enforced, but who wants to have to campaign as the guy that legalized adultery?
    I doubt congress will take up the war on drugs until the states have broadly legalized.

  137. Actually, the US Congress should freaking step up and handle it.
    Yeah. But I’m doubtful. It’s terrible policy that destroys lives and wastes money, but nobody wants to be tied to standing up for people who do drugs.
    It’s like adultery is still a felony in 5 states ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#United_States ). Stupid law that never gets enforced, but who wants to have to campaign as the guy that legalized adultery?
    I doubt congress will take up the war on drugs until the states have broadly legalized.

  138. Actually, the US Congress should freaking step up and handle it.
    Yeah. But I’m doubtful. It’s terrible policy that destroys lives and wastes money, but nobody wants to be tied to standing up for people who do drugs.
    It’s like adultery is still a felony in 5 states ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#United_States ). Stupid law that never gets enforced, but who wants to have to campaign as the guy that legalized adultery?
    I doubt congress will take up the war on drugs until the states have broadly legalized.

  142. Woof!
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/23/1316080/-Meet-Republican-Jody-Hice-the-likely-new-craziest-member-of-Congress
    They’ll likely piss on the back right tire and then take a dump on the floor of the House and drag their asses around the carpet for the next two years, on account of the fact that they haven’t been dewormed.
    The Republican Party is a disgrace.
    The rest of the world is laughing at us, as they should, because we’re dumb enough to elect pig filth like Hice.
    If I were a fellow conservative like Vladimir Putin I’d take this opportunity to invade eastern Europe because Hice and company got nothing.
    I predict Hice will be shot in the head by a true American patriot and will leave office feet first.

  143. Woof!
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/23/1316080/-Meet-Republican-Jody-Hice-the-likely-new-craziest-member-of-Congress
    They’ll likely piss on the back right tire and then take a dump on the floor of the House and drag their asses around the carpet for the next two years, on account of the fact that they haven’t been dewormed.
    The Republican Party is a disgrace.
    The rest of the world is laughing at us, as they should, because we’re dumb enough to elect pig filth like Hice.
    If I were a fellow conservative like Vladimir Putin I’d take this opportunity to invade eastern Europe because Hice and company got nothing.
    I predict Hice will be shot in the head by a true American patriot and will leave office feet first.

  144. Woof!
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/23/1316080/-Meet-Republican-Jody-Hice-the-likely-new-craziest-member-of-Congress
    They’ll likely piss on the back right tire and then take a dump on the floor of the House and drag their asses around the carpet for the next two years, on account of the fact that they haven’t been dewormed.
    The Republican Party is a disgrace.
    The rest of the world is laughing at us, as they should, because we’re dumb enough to elect pig filth like Hice.
    If I were a fellow conservative like Vladimir Putin I’d take this opportunity to invade eastern Europe because Hice and company got nothing.
    I predict Hice will be shot in the head by a true American patriot and will leave office feet first.

  148. Like all good Democrats, I voted six to eight times (lost count after the 3rd drink)….all to no avail.
    Congratulations, assholes.

  149. Like all good Democrats, I voted six to eight times (lost count after the 3rd drink)….all to no avail.
    Congratulations, assholes.

  150. Like all good Democrats, I voted six to eight times (lost count after the 3rd drink)….all to no avail.
    Congratulations, assholes.

  151. The people who had the most to lose didn’t bother to vote. Where there was high voter turnout (e.g. Minnesota), progressive candidates got elected. Far-right Republicans are a dying, rump political party, much like the Confederate Party during Reconstruction in the South. They use desperate, nihilistic tactics and a cult-like discipline of their adherents to control far more political turf than their numbers justify. They will be gone in fifty years.

  152. The people who had the most to lose didn’t bother to vote. Where there was high voter turnout (e.g. Minnesota), progressive candidates got elected. Far-right Republicans are a dying, rump political party, much like the Confederate Party during Reconstruction in the South. They use desperate, nihilistic tactics and a cult-like discipline of their adherents to control far more political turf than their numbers justify. They will be gone in fifty years.

  153. The people who had the most to lose didn’t bother to vote. Where there was high voter turnout (e.g. Minnesota), progressive candidates got elected. Far-right Republicans are a dying, rump political party, much like the Confederate Party during Reconstruction in the South. They use desperate, nihilistic tactics and a cult-like discipline of their adherents to control far more political turf than their numbers justify. They will be gone in fifty years.

  157. Texas has a constitution the size of Texas.

    A prize to the man who spotted the intended meaning, there.
    Did I mention I lived in Texas for a couple of years?
    I haven’t lived in Georgia since I was 8, though.

  158. Texas has a constitution the size of Texas.

    A prize to the man who spotted the intended meaning, there.
    Did I mention I lived in Texas for a couple of years?
    I haven’t lived in Georgia since I was 8, though.

  159. Texas has a constitution the size of Texas.

    A prize to the man who spotted the intended meaning, there.
    Did I mention I lived in Texas for a couple of years?
    I haven’t lived in Georgia since I was 8, though.

  166. CJColucci skrev :
    The dog has caught the car it was chasing. Now what?
    My hat, sir. It is tipped.
    This is the best synthesis of the election results that I’ve yet seen.

  167. CJColucci skrev :
    The dog has caught the car it was chasing. Now what?
    My hat, sir. It is tipped.
    This is the best synthesis of the election results that I’ve yet seen.

  168. CJColucci skrev :
    The dog has caught the car it was chasing. Now what?
    My hat, sir. It is tipped.
    This is the best synthesis of the election results that I’ve yet seen.

  169. An appeals Court has upheld gay marriage bans in four states:
    Two Rs for, one D dissenting.
    But this reasoning, especially that first clause, popped out at me:
    ‘”[T]he right to marry in general, and the right to gay marriage in particular, nowhere appear in the Constitution. That route for recognizing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage does not exist,” Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote for the court.’
    We’ll take a lengthy commercial break now while all of us explain to our spouses, our wedding guests, and especially our children, that our marriages are not recognized by the Constitution and are kaputnik.
    Return the toasters, have fun divvying up the assets, and get thy selves to Adult Friend Finder, because the bets ….. they are off.

  170. An appeals Court has upheld gay marriage bans in four states:
    Two Rs for, one D dissenting.
    But this reasoning, especially that first clause, popped out at me:
    ‘”[T]he right to marry in general, and the right to gay marriage in particular, nowhere appear in the Constitution. That route for recognizing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage does not exist,” Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote for the court.’
    We’ll take a lengthy commercial break now while all of us explain to our spouses, our wedding guests, and especially our children, that our marriages are not recognized by the Constitution and are kaputnik.
    Return the toasters, have fun divvying up the assets, and get thy selves to Adult Friend Finder, because the bets ….. they are off.

  171. An appeals Court has upheld gay marriage bans in four states:
    Two Rs for, one D dissenting.
    But this reasoning, especially that first clause, popped out at me:
    ‘”[T]he right to marry in general, and the right to gay marriage in particular, nowhere appear in the Constitution. That route for recognizing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage does not exist,” Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote for the court.’
    We’ll take a lengthy commercial break now while all of us explain to our spouses, our wedding guests, and especially our children, that our marriages are not recognized by the Constitution and are kaputnik.
    Return the toasters, have fun divvying up the assets, and get thy selves to Adult Friend Finder, because the bets ….. they are off.

  175. Maybe it’s worth coming back, if only to tease the Count a bit.
    How’s this? Senate Republicans should be as bipartisan as Reid was. And not one bit more. Of course, that means running the place as though there were no Democratic Senators.
    Oh, well, as you sow, so shall you reap. Have a heaping helping of payback.

  176. Maybe it’s worth coming back, if only to tease the Count a bit.
    How’s this? Senate Republicans should be as bipartisan as Reid was. And not one bit more. Of course, that means running the place as though there were no Democratic Senators.
    Oh, well, as you sow, so shall you reap. Have a heaping helping of payback.

  177. Maybe it’s worth coming back, if only to tease the Count a bit.
    How’s this? Senate Republicans should be as bipartisan as Reid was. And not one bit more. Of course, that means running the place as though there were no Democratic Senators.
    Oh, well, as you sow, so shall you reap. Have a heaping helping of payback.

  178. Senate Republicans should be as bipartisan as Reid was.
    It has always confounded me that Republicans can play political hardball that flouts long-established norms (DeLay’s TX redistricting, the shenanigans on the House floor to get Medicare Part D though, threatening the nation with credit default, not even inviting D. committee members to committee meetings, shutting off their mikes when they try to object to procedural shortcuts, the “Hastert Rule”) and we’re all supposed to be OK with it — “it ain’t beanbag”, etc. …
    but on those rare occasions when Democrats play hardball, it’s just horribly offensive to the Republican sense of political entitlement.

  179. Senate Republicans should be as bipartisan as Reid was.
    It has always confounded me that Republicans can play political hardball that flouts long-established norms (DeLay’s TX redistricting, the shenanigans on the House floor to get Medicare Part D though, threatening the nation with credit default, not even inviting D. committee members to committee meetings, shutting off their mikes when they try to object to procedural shortcuts, the “Hastert Rule”) and we’re all supposed to be OK with it — “it ain’t beanbag”, etc. …
    but on those rare occasions when Democrats play hardball, it’s just horribly offensive to the Republican sense of political entitlement.

  180. Senate Republicans should be as bipartisan as Reid was.
    It has always confounded me that Republicans can play political hardball that flouts long-established norms (DeLay’s TX redistricting, the shenanigans on the House floor to get Medicare Part D though, threatening the nation with credit default, not even inviting D. committee members to committee meetings, shutting off their mikes when they try to object to procedural shortcuts, the “Hastert Rule”) and we’re all supposed to be OK with it — “it ain’t beanbag”, etc. …
    but on those rare occasions when Democrats play hardball, it’s just horribly offensive to the Republican sense of political entitlement.

  181. On the “as bipartisan” front, I look forward to counting the number of Democratic filibusters in the next two years.
    On the “Brett Bellmore is still Republican” front, well, Generalissimo Fransisco Franco is still dead.
    –TP

  182. On the “as bipartisan” front, I look forward to counting the number of Democratic filibusters in the next two years.
    On the “Brett Bellmore is still Republican” front, well, Generalissimo Fransisco Franco is still dead.
    –TP

  183. On the “as bipartisan” front, I look forward to counting the number of Democratic filibusters in the next two years.
    On the “Brett Bellmore is still Republican” front, well, Generalissimo Fransisco Franco is still dead.
    –TP

  184. Reid was a boxer when younger.
    Take it up with him.
    I’m not a Harry Reid fan myself, but I like his left jab.
    What Joel Hanes said, in spades.
    I blame newt Gingrich and company for starting the, ahem, “decline” in political civility, dicey at it was in the first place, in our hallowed halls, which has now been institutionalized in both the House and the Senate.
    It was a deliberate strategy to destroy the lifeblood of a functioning democracy — civility.
    They wouldn’t even socialize with the elected representatives of we lesser liberal Americans.
    Their delicate, cultish families couldn’t move to Washington D.C. for fear of contamination.
    If horse-trading is your game, it’s not a good idea to shoot and eat the horse as your opening gambit.
    Your guy, Gingrich was, Brett, though I know you stay above it all in Libertarian lalaland, except when you are being a Republican for purposes of eye-gouging.
    Then of course, the recruitment across the board by the Republican Party of candidates whose number one platform plank is no compromise and labeling every single Republican who might err the other way as a RINO and ending their careers.
    No more Bob Doles. No more decent human beings.
    Just guys like Leon Wolf at Redstate, the putz, who uses the term “enemy” to describe Democrats (that’s nothing new over there), when he gets a chance to talk during the few moments Erick Erickson’s dick isn’t in his mouth, not that there is anything wrong with that, although Wolf probably thinks there is.
    Heck, Harry Reid, for all his incompetence, should have hit below the belt a few more times for good measure.
    Unlike every other liberal on this board, I would surmise, I’m all for making the taste of crushed testicle reflux into these people’s mouths, if indeed they are people.
    Tease away, Brett. I liked it better when you were here, rather than getting disemvoweled at Crooked Timber.
    I always though it a shame that Confederate traitor John Calhoun was permitted to die of natural causes. He should have been shot in the head and the Civil War allowed to commence 10 years before it did.
    Letting these things fester is not good for the country.

  185. Reid was a boxer when younger.
    Take it up with him.
    I’m not a Harry Reid fan myself, but I like his left jab.
    What Joel Hanes said, in spades.
    I blame newt Gingrich and company for starting the, ahem, “decline” in political civility, dicey at it was in the first place, in our hallowed halls, which has now been institutionalized in both the House and the Senate.
    It was a deliberate strategy to destroy the lifeblood of a functioning democracy — civility.
    They wouldn’t even socialize with the elected representatives of we lesser liberal Americans.
    Their delicate, cultish families couldn’t move to Washington D.C. for fear of contamination.
    If horse-trading is your game, it’s not a good idea to shoot and eat the horse as your opening gambit.
    Your guy, Gingrich was, Brett, though I know you stay above it all in Libertarian lalaland, except when you are being a Republican for purposes of eye-gouging.
    Then of course, the recruitment across the board by the Republican Party of candidates whose number one platform plank is no compromise and labeling every single Republican who might err the other way as a RINO and ending their careers.
    No more Bob Doles. No more decent human beings.
    Just guys like Leon Wolf at Redstate, the putz, who uses the term “enemy” to describe Democrats (that’s nothing new over there), when he gets a chance to talk during the few moments Erick Erickson’s dick isn’t in his mouth, not that there is anything wrong with that, although Wolf probably thinks there is.
    Heck, Harry Reid, for all his incompetence, should have hit below the belt a few more times for good measure.
    Unlike every other liberal on this board, I would surmise, I’m all for making the taste of crushed testicle reflux into these people’s mouths, if indeed they are people.
    Tease away, Brett. I liked it better when you were here, rather than getting disemvoweled at Crooked Timber.
    I always though it a shame that Confederate traitor John Calhoun was permitted to die of natural causes. He should have been shot in the head and the Civil War allowed to commence 10 years before it did.
    Letting these things fester is not good for the country.

  186. Reid was a boxer when younger.
    Take it up with him.
    I’m not a Harry Reid fan myself, but I like his left jab.
    What Joel Hanes said, in spades.
    I blame newt Gingrich and company for starting the, ahem, “decline” in political civility, dicey at it was in the first place, in our hallowed halls, which has now been institutionalized in both the House and the Senate.
    It was a deliberate strategy to destroy the lifeblood of a functioning democracy — civility.
    They wouldn’t even socialize with the elected representatives of we lesser liberal Americans.
    Their delicate, cultish families couldn’t move to Washington D.C. for fear of contamination.
    If horse-trading is your game, it’s not a good idea to shoot and eat the horse as your opening gambit.
    Your guy, Gingrich was, Brett, though I know you stay above it all in Libertarian lalaland, except when you are being a Republican for purposes of eye-gouging.
    Then of course, the recruitment across the board by the Republican Party of candidates whose number one platform plank is no compromise and labeling every single Republican who might err the other way as a RINO and ending their careers.
    No more Bob Doles. No more decent human beings.
    Just guys like Leon Wolf at Redstate, the putz, who uses the term “enemy” to describe Democrats (that’s nothing new over there), when he gets a chance to talk during the few moments Erick Erickson’s dick isn’t in his mouth, not that there is anything wrong with that, although Wolf probably thinks there is.
    Heck, Harry Reid, for all his incompetence, should have hit below the belt a few more times for good measure.
    Unlike every other liberal on this board, I would surmise, I’m all for making the taste of crushed testicle reflux into these people’s mouths, if indeed they are people.
    Tease away, Brett. I liked it better when you were here, rather than getting disemvoweled at Crooked Timber.
    I always though it a shame that Confederate traitor John Calhoun was permitted to die of natural causes. He should have been shot in the head and the Civil War allowed to commence 10 years before it did.
    Letting these things fester is not good for the country.

  187. Senate Republicans should be as bipartisan as Reid was. And not one bit more.
    How would this be different than what they’ve been doing?
    Do you really imagine that Republican senators have been trying to pass sensible legislation but have been blocked by the villainous Harry Reid?
    I didn’t think even you would believe that.

  188. Senate Republicans should be as bipartisan as Reid was. And not one bit more.
    How would this be different than what they’ve been doing?
    Do you really imagine that Republican senators have been trying to pass sensible legislation but have been blocked by the villainous Harry Reid?
    I didn’t think even you would believe that.

  189. Senate Republicans should be as bipartisan as Reid was. And not one bit more.
    How would this be different than what they’ve been doing?
    Do you really imagine that Republican senators have been trying to pass sensible legislation but have been blocked by the villainous Harry Reid?
    I didn’t think even you would believe that.

  190. Democrats are to blame for this drubbing, by which I mean the ones who couldn’t take the trouble to vote.
    I don’t blame those who were turned away from the polls by shithead voting restrictions.
    That’s why I’m now in favor of open carry on election day.
    Can’t you see my initials on this here howitzer?

  191. Democrats are to blame for this drubbing, by which I mean the ones who couldn’t take the trouble to vote.
    I don’t blame those who were turned away from the polls by shithead voting restrictions.
    That’s why I’m now in favor of open carry on election day.
    Can’t you see my initials on this here howitzer?

  192. Democrats are to blame for this drubbing, by which I mean the ones who couldn’t take the trouble to vote.
    I don’t blame those who were turned away from the polls by shithead voting restrictions.
    That’s why I’m now in favor of open carry on election day.
    Can’t you see my initials on this here howitzer?

  193. We communists had better learn from Mitch McConnell.
    After 2016, we might be in the same boat. Will we have the stomach to throw the monkey wrench into the works to the same extent? Could Dems hang together like the GOP has during their recent exile from power?
    Since so many “moderate” Democrats have their heads up their butts in servile obedience to the Money Power, most likely not.

  194. We communists had better learn from Mitch McConnell.
    After 2016, we might be in the same boat. Will we have the stomach to throw the monkey wrench into the works to the same extent? Could Dems hang together like the GOP has during their recent exile from power?
    Since so many “moderate” Democrats have their heads up their butts in servile obedience to the Money Power, most likely not.

  195. We communists had better learn from Mitch McConnell.
    After 2016, we might be in the same boat. Will we have the stomach to throw the monkey wrench into the works to the same extent? Could Dems hang together like the GOP has during their recent exile from power?
    Since so many “moderate” Democrats have their heads up their butts in servile obedience to the Money Power, most likely not.

  199. Looking at the campaigns of some Democrats(?), I’d say they fully deserved to lose. One of the worst examples was Pryor’s ad where all he did is waving a Bible and saying that this is his lodestone and North Star and that people should vote for him for that. Not knowing who he was one would have to assume that he was a Southern Republican. Another ad of of his promised tax cuts for companies and radical deregulation (he disguised himself as a farmer in that one). And then there was that woman in Kentucky that would squirm like a worm to not answer the simple question ‘Did you vote for Obama?’
    The ‘lesser of two evils’ becomes meaningless with people like these, when the choice becomes one between mental asylum escapee and corporate being of negotiable affection. Given the results of the ballot initiatives in many states, ‘the people’ seem not to be the ‘center-right’* persons postulated in the mainstream media.
    *center located so far to the right that most civilized countries consider the parties associated with it as fringe.

  200. Looking at the campaigns of some Democrats(?), I’d say they fully deserved to lose. One of the worst examples was Pryor’s ad where all he did is waving a Bible and saying that this is his lodestone and North Star and that people should vote for him for that. Not knowing who he was one would have to assume that he was a Southern Republican. Another ad of of his promised tax cuts for companies and radical deregulation (he disguised himself as a farmer in that one). And then there was that woman in Kentucky that would squirm like a worm to not answer the simple question ‘Did you vote for Obama?’
    The ‘lesser of two evils’ becomes meaningless with people like these, when the choice becomes one between mental asylum escapee and corporate being of negotiable affection. Given the results of the ballot initiatives in many states, ‘the people’ seem not to be the ‘center-right’* persons postulated in the mainstream media.
    *center located so far to the right that most civilized countries consider the parties associated with it as fringe.

  201. Looking at the campaigns of some Democrats(?), I’d say they fully deserved to lose. One of the worst examples was Pryor’s ad where all he did is waving a Bible and saying that this is his lodestone and North Star and that people should vote for him for that. Not knowing who he was one would have to assume that he was a Southern Republican. Another ad of of his promised tax cuts for companies and radical deregulation (he disguised himself as a farmer in that one). And then there was that woman in Kentucky that would squirm like a worm to not answer the simple question ‘Did you vote for Obama?’
    The ‘lesser of two evils’ becomes meaningless with people like these, when the choice becomes one between mental asylum escapee and corporate being of negotiable affection. Given the results of the ballot initiatives in many states, ‘the people’ seem not to be the ‘center-right’* persons postulated in the mainstream media.
    *center located so far to the right that most civilized countries consider the parties associated with it as fringe.

  202. “Democrats are to blame for this drubbing, by which I mean the ones who couldn’t take the trouble to vote.”
    What, not the ones who couldn’t take the trouble to give them a good reason to vote? The Democratic party is losing confidence in the American people?
    Brecht sure had you nailed, Count:
    The Solution
    Bertolt Brecht
    After the uprising of the 17th June
    The Secretary of the Writer’s Union
    Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
    Stating that the people
    Had forfeited the confidence of the government
    And could win it back only
    By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
    In that case for the government
    To dissolve the people
    And elect another?
    Job one for the Republicans once they take over: Stopping and reversing the Democratic party’s relentless efforts to dissolve the people and elect another.

  203. “Democrats are to blame for this drubbing, by which I mean the ones who couldn’t take the trouble to vote.”
    What, not the ones who couldn’t take the trouble to give them a good reason to vote? The Democratic party is losing confidence in the American people?
    Brecht sure had you nailed, Count:
    The Solution
    Bertolt Brecht
    After the uprising of the 17th June
    The Secretary of the Writer’s Union
    Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
    Stating that the people
    Had forfeited the confidence of the government
    And could win it back only
    By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
    In that case for the government
    To dissolve the people
    And elect another?
    Job one for the Republicans once they take over: Stopping and reversing the Democratic party’s relentless efforts to dissolve the people and elect another.

  204. “Democrats are to blame for this drubbing, by which I mean the ones who couldn’t take the trouble to vote.”
    What, not the ones who couldn’t take the trouble to give them a good reason to vote? The Democratic party is losing confidence in the American people?
    Brecht sure had you nailed, Count:
    The Solution
    Bertolt Brecht
    After the uprising of the 17th June
    The Secretary of the Writer’s Union
    Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
    Stating that the people
    Had forfeited the confidence of the government
    And could win it back only
    By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
    In that case for the government
    To dissolve the people
    And elect another?
    Job one for the Republicans once they take over: Stopping and reversing the Democratic party’s relentless efforts to dissolve the people and elect another.

  205. Senate Republicans should be as bipartisan as Reid was. And not one bit more.
    Because God forbid that anyone even consider trying to make things better! If you think that the way that Reid ran the Senate was bad, it’s just so obviously better to totally avoid doing anything to demonstrate that you might be a better party/human being.
    Why subscribe “Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you” when you can justify everything like a grammer school kid screaming “He did it first!”? A race to the bottom is just so much better for the country.

  206. Senate Republicans should be as bipartisan as Reid was. And not one bit more.
    Because God forbid that anyone even consider trying to make things better! If you think that the way that Reid ran the Senate was bad, it’s just so obviously better to totally avoid doing anything to demonstrate that you might be a better party/human being.
    Why subscribe “Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you” when you can justify everything like a grammer school kid screaming “He did it first!”? A race to the bottom is just so much better for the country.

  207. Senate Republicans should be as bipartisan as Reid was. And not one bit more.
    Because God forbid that anyone even consider trying to make things better! If you think that the way that Reid ran the Senate was bad, it’s just so obviously better to totally avoid doing anything to demonstrate that you might be a better party/human being.
    Why subscribe “Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you” when you can justify everything like a grammer school kid screaming “He did it first!”? A race to the bottom is just so much better for the country.

  208. Why subscribe “Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you” when you can justify everything like a grammer school kid screaming “He did it first!”?
    i’m sure there’s a deep libertarian principle at work here, and it only looks to us unenlightened folks that Brett is really nothing more than a GOP cheerleader.

  209. Why subscribe “Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you” when you can justify everything like a grammer school kid screaming “He did it first!”?
    i’m sure there’s a deep libertarian principle at work here, and it only looks to us unenlightened folks that Brett is really nothing more than a GOP cheerleader.

  210. Why subscribe “Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you” when you can justify everything like a grammer school kid screaming “He did it first!”?
    i’m sure there’s a deep libertarian principle at work here, and it only looks to us unenlightened folks that Brett is really nothing more than a GOP cheerleader.

  211. I didn’t think even you would believe that.
    Brett believes we wouldn’t remember all the times he claimed he wasn’t a Republican so this isn’t much of a stretch. I think Brett’s next line is La Commedia è finita!

  212. I didn’t think even you would believe that.
    Brett believes we wouldn’t remember all the times he claimed he wasn’t a Republican so this isn’t much of a stretch. I think Brett’s next line is La Commedia è finita!

  213. I didn’t think even you would believe that.
    Brett believes we wouldn’t remember all the times he claimed he wasn’t a Republican so this isn’t much of a stretch. I think Brett’s next line is La Commedia è finita!

  214. Because you’re not asking for fair play, if bipartisanship is something only Republicans have to do. You’re asking for “Heads I win, tails you lose.” You’re asking the Republicans to be chumps.
    We’re already at the bottom, no need to race there. You want standing to demand that the victors be gracious, you need to get that standing before the victory, by being gracious yourselves. To late now for that.

  215. Because you’re not asking for fair play, if bipartisanship is something only Republicans have to do. You’re asking for “Heads I win, tails you lose.” You’re asking the Republicans to be chumps.
    We’re already at the bottom, no need to race there. You want standing to demand that the victors be gracious, you need to get that standing before the victory, by being gracious yourselves. To late now for that.

  216. Because you’re not asking for fair play, if bipartisanship is something only Republicans have to do. You’re asking for “Heads I win, tails you lose.” You’re asking the Republicans to be chumps.
    We’re already at the bottom, no need to race there. You want standing to demand that the victors be gracious, you need to get that standing before the victory, by being gracious yourselves. To late now for that.

  217. I believe, sincerely, that there is a chance that McConnell can restore order and some level of respect to Congress. A functioning Congress, even with Obama vetoing some things is my yardstick for progress in this Congress. Committees meet, there is actual floor debate, amendments get to be offered, bills pass, a budget gets completed. Reid made sure none of that ever happened. All other bad things the Republicans did, Reid shelved massive amounts of bills, limited debate,limited the ability to even discuss amendments.

  218. I believe, sincerely, that there is a chance that McConnell can restore order and some level of respect to Congress. A functioning Congress, even with Obama vetoing some things is my yardstick for progress in this Congress. Committees meet, there is actual floor debate, amendments get to be offered, bills pass, a budget gets completed. Reid made sure none of that ever happened. All other bad things the Republicans did, Reid shelved massive amounts of bills, limited debate,limited the ability to even discuss amendments.

  219. I believe, sincerely, that there is a chance that McConnell can restore order and some level of respect to Congress. A functioning Congress, even with Obama vetoing some things is my yardstick for progress in this Congress. Committees meet, there is actual floor debate, amendments get to be offered, bills pass, a budget gets completed. Reid made sure none of that ever happened. All other bad things the Republicans did, Reid shelved massive amounts of bills, limited debate,limited the ability to even discuss amendments.

  220. that there is a chance that McConnell can restore order and some level of respect to Congress
    McConnell could’ve restored that order any time in the past 6 years by not being a petty obstructionist tool. but he chose not to.
    he chose to block and delay and fight everything he could for no other reason than to deny Obama any victories.
    you can try to blame it all on Reid, but everyone can see that McConnell’s hands are pretty dirty too.

  221. that there is a chance that McConnell can restore order and some level of respect to Congress
    McConnell could’ve restored that order any time in the past 6 years by not being a petty obstructionist tool. but he chose not to.
    he chose to block and delay and fight everything he could for no other reason than to deny Obama any victories.
    you can try to blame it all on Reid, but everyone can see that McConnell’s hands are pretty dirty too.

  222. that there is a chance that McConnell can restore order and some level of respect to Congress
    McConnell could’ve restored that order any time in the past 6 years by not being a petty obstructionist tool. but he chose not to.
    he chose to block and delay and fight everything he could for no other reason than to deny Obama any victories.
    you can try to blame it all on Reid, but everyone can see that McConnell’s hands are pretty dirty too.

  223. What wj said needs to be made into a banner and hung from the walls of congress.
    Why subscribe “Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you” when you can justify everything like a grammer school kid screaming “He did it first!”?
    As a warning, not as an instruction book. As a reminder of how they look on TV when they bicker about meaningless crap rather than voting on legislation.
    Is it really productive arguing about how much our various leaders need to act like adults? Can’t the answer be 100%, all the time? Instead of, well, last year X did this bad thing, so Y should now be this intransigent?
    At some point, somebody has to be an adult. And they are going to have to keep being an adult, even when ‘the other side’ is behaving like whiny children.
    Politics should not be a sport. There shouldn’t be teams, and we shouldn’t feel righteous about playing as dirty as the ‘other side’.

  224. What wj said needs to be made into a banner and hung from the walls of congress.
    Why subscribe “Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you” when you can justify everything like a grammer school kid screaming “He did it first!”?
    As a warning, not as an instruction book. As a reminder of how they look on TV when they bicker about meaningless crap rather than voting on legislation.
    Is it really productive arguing about how much our various leaders need to act like adults? Can’t the answer be 100%, all the time? Instead of, well, last year X did this bad thing, so Y should now be this intransigent?
    At some point, somebody has to be an adult. And they are going to have to keep being an adult, even when ‘the other side’ is behaving like whiny children.
    Politics should not be a sport. There shouldn’t be teams, and we shouldn’t feel righteous about playing as dirty as the ‘other side’.

  225. What wj said needs to be made into a banner and hung from the walls of congress.
    Why subscribe “Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you” when you can justify everything like a grammer school kid screaming “He did it first!”?
    As a warning, not as an instruction book. As a reminder of how they look on TV when they bicker about meaningless crap rather than voting on legislation.
    Is it really productive arguing about how much our various leaders need to act like adults? Can’t the answer be 100%, all the time? Instead of, well, last year X did this bad thing, so Y should now be this intransigent?
    At some point, somebody has to be an adult. And they are going to have to keep being an adult, even when ‘the other side’ is behaving like whiny children.
    Politics should not be a sport. There shouldn’t be teams, and we shouldn’t feel righteous about playing as dirty as the ‘other side’.

  229. It worked for them didn’t it?
    Plus we do not know who the speakers will be. Some TPers already went on record that they would NOT vote for the establishment guys.
    I wouldn’t either, it’s just that the alternatives are too much Grand Guignol. And Cruz would not really want the job as long as he sees a chance of becoming POTUS candidate. Stabbing incumbents (and other colleagues) in the back is just more fun and furthers his credentials with the base.
    I wonder, whether he knows that ‘base’ is also a personal insult (‘are you so base as to…?).;-)

  230. It worked for them didn’t it?
    Plus we do not know who the speakers will be. Some TPers already went on record that they would NOT vote for the establishment guys.
    I wouldn’t either, it’s just that the alternatives are too much Grand Guignol. And Cruz would not really want the job as long as he sees a chance of becoming POTUS candidate. Stabbing incumbents (and other colleagues) in the back is just more fun and furthers his credentials with the base.
    I wonder, whether he knows that ‘base’ is also a personal insult (‘are you so base as to…?).;-)

  231. It worked for them didn’t it?
    Plus we do not know who the speakers will be. Some TPers already went on record that they would NOT vote for the establishment guys.
    I wouldn’t either, it’s just that the alternatives are too much Grand Guignol. And Cruz would not really want the job as long as he sees a chance of becoming POTUS candidate. Stabbing incumbents (and other colleagues) in the back is just more fun and furthers his credentials with the base.
    I wonder, whether he knows that ‘base’ is also a personal insult (‘are you so base as to…?).;-)

  232. but it is, because we’re human, not vulcan.
    Is there no middle ground between vulcan and behaving like whiny children? Is it impossible for humans to work with people that they disagree with?
    Of course not.

  233. but it is, because we’re human, not vulcan.
    Is there no middle ground between vulcan and behaving like whiny children? Is it impossible for humans to work with people that they disagree with?
    Of course not.

  234. but it is, because we’re human, not vulcan.
    Is there no middle ground between vulcan and behaving like whiny children? Is it impossible for humans to work with people that they disagree with?
    Of course not.

  238. there’s all kinds of middle ground – and that’s where we spend our time. it’s where people sometimes act like human children and sometimes act like adult vulcans.
    Is it impossible for humans to work with people that they disagree with?
    i certainly didn’t say it was impossible. but it’s going to happen a lot less often than is good for us.

  239. there’s all kinds of middle ground – and that’s where we spend our time. it’s where people sometimes act like human children and sometimes act like adult vulcans.
    Is it impossible for humans to work with people that they disagree with?
    i certainly didn’t say it was impossible. but it’s going to happen a lot less often than is good for us.

  240. there’s all kinds of middle ground – and that’s where we spend our time. it’s where people sometimes act like human children and sometimes act like adult vulcans.
    Is it impossible for humans to work with people that they disagree with?
    i certainly didn’t say it was impossible. but it’s going to happen a lot less often than is good for us.

  241. Marty: “MartyCommittees meet, there is actual floor debate, amendments get to be offered, bills pass, a budget gets completed. Reid made sure none of that ever happened. All other bad things the Republicans did, Reid shelved massive amounts of bills, limited debate,limited the ability to even discuss amendments.”
    First, ‘Reid made sure none of that ever happened.’ is factually not true, and it’s trivial to verify.
    It might be a violation of the posting rules, but this is a flat-out lie.
    As for the rest, (a) the GOP set new records for use of the filibuster – they didn’t want things to happen either; (b) either the Infernal Regions will experience a sustained breath of cool, pleasant air, or the GOP Senate will also ‘shelved massive amounts of bills, limited debate,limited the ability to even discuss amendments.”‘, and do it twice as much.

  242. Marty: “MartyCommittees meet, there is actual floor debate, amendments get to be offered, bills pass, a budget gets completed. Reid made sure none of that ever happened. All other bad things the Republicans did, Reid shelved massive amounts of bills, limited debate,limited the ability to even discuss amendments.”
    First, ‘Reid made sure none of that ever happened.’ is factually not true, and it’s trivial to verify.
    It might be a violation of the posting rules, but this is a flat-out lie.
    As for the rest, (a) the GOP set new records for use of the filibuster – they didn’t want things to happen either; (b) either the Infernal Regions will experience a sustained breath of cool, pleasant air, or the GOP Senate will also ‘shelved massive amounts of bills, limited debate,limited the ability to even discuss amendments.”‘, and do it twice as much.

  243. Marty: “MartyCommittees meet, there is actual floor debate, amendments get to be offered, bills pass, a budget gets completed. Reid made sure none of that ever happened. All other bad things the Republicans did, Reid shelved massive amounts of bills, limited debate,limited the ability to even discuss amendments.”
    First, ‘Reid made sure none of that ever happened.’ is factually not true, and it’s trivial to verify.
    It might be a violation of the posting rules, but this is a flat-out lie.
    As for the rest, (a) the GOP set new records for use of the filibuster – they didn’t want things to happen either; (b) either the Infernal Regions will experience a sustained breath of cool, pleasant air, or the GOP Senate will also ‘shelved massive amounts of bills, limited debate,limited the ability to even discuss amendments.”‘, and do it twice as much.

  244. Wasn’t Brecht a Groucho Marxist?
    I believe he was called before the House unAmerican Activities Committee and blacklisted by Hollywood studios by your lot, who didn’t so much think that the people should be replaced, but merely harassed and drummed out their professions, in a historic convergence of American Republican and East German totalitarian thinking.
    Bill O’Reilly would be your more likely source for quotes, Brett, in this discussion. A day or two before the election, doubting that republicans could do as well as they did, he said the American voter may well be “stupid” for keeping Democrats in power.
    Now, you tell me you don’t agree that.
    We’re voters, and you’ve been calling us stupid for, what, six years and counting?
    That’s O.K. It’s the internet.
    Yes, as Hartmut pointed out, the Democratic political campaigns were incompetent pap. Furthermore, it never works to run from the leader of your political party in an election, like a bunch of cowards, unless he’s about to be convicted of breaking and entering.
    You are right. Democratic voters, including the base, whatever that is, were given nothing to vote for, in large measure.
    Not an uncommon development in mid-term elections.
    All I ask is that Democratic voters act more like the Republican base, and turn out to exercise their franchise and vote for their candidates, even if the candidate is a lunatic, a sociopath, or a can of Spam, or some combination thereof.
    I want them to be more like you, a team player.
    I realize you are just on loan to the Republican Party from the Deep Woods Libertarian Spear-Chucking League, and I think maybe your season is about to commence.
    Hurry, switch jerseys.

  245. Wasn’t Brecht a Groucho Marxist?
    I believe he was called before the House unAmerican Activities Committee and blacklisted by Hollywood studios by your lot, who didn’t so much think that the people should be replaced, but merely harassed and drummed out their professions, in a historic convergence of American Republican and East German totalitarian thinking.
    Bill O’Reilly would be your more likely source for quotes, Brett, in this discussion. A day or two before the election, doubting that republicans could do as well as they did, he said the American voter may well be “stupid” for keeping Democrats in power.
    Now, you tell me you don’t agree that.
    We’re voters, and you’ve been calling us stupid for, what, six years and counting?
    That’s O.K. It’s the internet.
    Yes, as Hartmut pointed out, the Democratic political campaigns were incompetent pap. Furthermore, it never works to run from the leader of your political party in an election, like a bunch of cowards, unless he’s about to be convicted of breaking and entering.
    You are right. Democratic voters, including the base, whatever that is, were given nothing to vote for, in large measure.
    Not an uncommon development in mid-term elections.
    All I ask is that Democratic voters act more like the Republican base, and turn out to exercise their franchise and vote for their candidates, even if the candidate is a lunatic, a sociopath, or a can of Spam, or some combination thereof.
    I want them to be more like you, a team player.
    I realize you are just on loan to the Republican Party from the Deep Woods Libertarian Spear-Chucking League, and I think maybe your season is about to commence.
    Hurry, switch jerseys.

  246. Wasn’t Brecht a Groucho Marxist?
    I believe he was called before the House unAmerican Activities Committee and blacklisted by Hollywood studios by your lot, who didn’t so much think that the people should be replaced, but merely harassed and drummed out their professions, in a historic convergence of American Republican and East German totalitarian thinking.
    Bill O’Reilly would be your more likely source for quotes, Brett, in this discussion. A day or two before the election, doubting that republicans could do as well as they did, he said the American voter may well be “stupid” for keeping Democrats in power.
    Now, you tell me you don’t agree that.
    We’re voters, and you’ve been calling us stupid for, what, six years and counting?
    That’s O.K. It’s the internet.
    Yes, as Hartmut pointed out, the Democratic political campaigns were incompetent pap. Furthermore, it never works to run from the leader of your political party in an election, like a bunch of cowards, unless he’s about to be convicted of breaking and entering.
    You are right. Democratic voters, including the base, whatever that is, were given nothing to vote for, in large measure.
    Not an uncommon development in mid-term elections.
    All I ask is that Democratic voters act more like the Republican base, and turn out to exercise their franchise and vote for their candidates, even if the candidate is a lunatic, a sociopath, or a can of Spam, or some combination thereof.
    I want them to be more like you, a team player.
    I realize you are just on loan to the Republican Party from the Deep Woods Libertarian Spear-Chucking League, and I think maybe your season is about to commence.
    Hurry, switch jerseys.

  247. thompson, I don’t disagree that politics shouldn’t be a sport.
    If that is so, however, why do we keep score?
    Like Coke and Pepsi.
    Nothing wrong with answering a couple of pitches aimed at my head with a spikes-up hard slide at second.
    Bob Gibson didn’t even think baseball was a sport, let alone politics.
    He dispensed with addressing the batters as his “esteemed colleagues”.
    It was life and death.

  248. thompson, I don’t disagree that politics shouldn’t be a sport.
    If that is so, however, why do we keep score?
    Like Coke and Pepsi.
    Nothing wrong with answering a couple of pitches aimed at my head with a spikes-up hard slide at second.
    Bob Gibson didn’t even think baseball was a sport, let alone politics.
    He dispensed with addressing the batters as his “esteemed colleagues”.
    It was life and death.

  249. thompson, I don’t disagree that politics shouldn’t be a sport.
    If that is so, however, why do we keep score?
    Like Coke and Pepsi.
    Nothing wrong with answering a couple of pitches aimed at my head with a spikes-up hard slide at second.
    Bob Gibson didn’t even think baseball was a sport, let alone politics.
    He dispensed with addressing the batters as his “esteemed colleagues”.
    It was life and death.

  250. You want standing to demand that the victors be gracious, you need to get that standing before the victory, by being gracious yourselves.
    But Brett, I’m a Republican, not a Democrat. Have been for decades. So I ought to have standing to demand that my party be gracious. Not that I expect the folks who are in Congress to do so, mind. But I do have standing to say that they ought to.

  251. You want standing to demand that the victors be gracious, you need to get that standing before the victory, by being gracious yourselves.
    But Brett, I’m a Republican, not a Democrat. Have been for decades. So I ought to have standing to demand that my party be gracious. Not that I expect the folks who are in Congress to do so, mind. But I do have standing to say that they ought to.

  252. You want standing to demand that the victors be gracious, you need to get that standing before the victory, by being gracious yourselves.
    But Brett, I’m a Republican, not a Democrat. Have been for decades. So I ought to have standing to demand that my party be gracious. Not that I expect the folks who are in Congress to do so, mind. But I do have standing to say that they ought to.

  253. Just saw this quoted by Tom Sullivan at Hullabaloo regarding the fact that even moderate liberals who hate sports, like Kay Hagen, were turned out of office in favor of fire-breathing cans of Spam.
    “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
    So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
    Rev 3:15-16”
    I wish the goings-on in the Bible weren’t so sporting what with the GOOD team and the EVIL team, and then the sacrifice bunt introduced in the New Testament.

  254. Just saw this quoted by Tom Sullivan at Hullabaloo regarding the fact that even moderate liberals who hate sports, like Kay Hagen, were turned out of office in favor of fire-breathing cans of Spam.
    “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
    So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
    Rev 3:15-16”
    I wish the goings-on in the Bible weren’t so sporting what with the GOOD team and the EVIL team, and then the sacrifice bunt introduced in the New Testament.

  255. Just saw this quoted by Tom Sullivan at Hullabaloo regarding the fact that even moderate liberals who hate sports, like Kay Hagen, were turned out of office in favor of fire-breathing cans of Spam.
    “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
    So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
    Rev 3:15-16”
    I wish the goings-on in the Bible weren’t so sporting what with the GOOD team and the EVIL team, and then the sacrifice bunt introduced in the New Testament.

  256. Count:
    however, why do we keep score?
    Good question. I can’t think of a reason other than some sort desire to “win” politically. A goal I view as orthogonal to governing.
    i certainly didn’t say it was impossible. but it’s going to happen a lot less often than is good for us.
    My misunderstanding. I’d agree, it happens far less than is good for us. And I don’t see signs that’s going to change dramatically.
    But it’s a goal worth working towards.

  257. Count:
    however, why do we keep score?
    Good question. I can’t think of a reason other than some sort desire to “win” politically. A goal I view as orthogonal to governing.
    i certainly didn’t say it was impossible. but it’s going to happen a lot less often than is good for us.
    My misunderstanding. I’d agree, it happens far less than is good for us. And I don’t see signs that’s going to change dramatically.
    But it’s a goal worth working towards.

  258. Count:
    however, why do we keep score?
    Good question. I can’t think of a reason other than some sort desire to “win” politically. A goal I view as orthogonal to governing.
    i certainly didn’t say it was impossible. but it’s going to happen a lot less often than is good for us.
    My misunderstanding. I’d agree, it happens far less than is good for us. And I don’t see signs that’s going to change dramatically.
    But it’s a goal worth working towards.

  259. There’s been a bit of discussion about the demographics of the country moving away the GOP platform. It’s something I’ve believed strongly over the last decade or more.
    Maybe it’s the heat of the moment, but I’m starting to lose my belief in that, despite the survey results showing younger people being more liberal or progressive in their beliefs and policy preferences, and despite the changing racial, ethnic and religous composition of the American populace.
    When is this demographic shift going to manifest itself? Yes, we elected a Black president. Yes, gay marriage is gaining ground. Yes, it seems the war on drugs is waning in certain respects, mainly where marajuana is concerned.
    But Republicans are doing well, not just in federal-level elections, but in local and state elections – perhaps even moreso at the state and local levels. And that has not only more immediate implication for the kinds of policies people around the country will live under, but also longer-term implications for who runs for and wins national offices.
    State legislators make the rules for elections and become members of congress and governors. Members of congress and governors become presidents.
    I just don’t see things getting better for liberals/progressives in this country anytime soon.

  260. There’s been a bit of discussion about the demographics of the country moving away the GOP platform. It’s something I’ve believed strongly over the last decade or more.
    Maybe it’s the heat of the moment, but I’m starting to lose my belief in that, despite the survey results showing younger people being more liberal or progressive in their beliefs and policy preferences, and despite the changing racial, ethnic and religous composition of the American populace.
    When is this demographic shift going to manifest itself? Yes, we elected a Black president. Yes, gay marriage is gaining ground. Yes, it seems the war on drugs is waning in certain respects, mainly where marajuana is concerned.
    But Republicans are doing well, not just in federal-level elections, but in local and state elections – perhaps even moreso at the state and local levels. And that has not only more immediate implication for the kinds of policies people around the country will live under, but also longer-term implications for who runs for and wins national offices.
    State legislators make the rules for elections and become members of congress and governors. Members of congress and governors become presidents.
    I just don’t see things getting better for liberals/progressives in this country anytime soon.

  261. There’s been a bit of discussion about the demographics of the country moving away the GOP platform. It’s something I’ve believed strongly over the last decade or more.
    Maybe it’s the heat of the moment, but I’m starting to lose my belief in that, despite the survey results showing younger people being more liberal or progressive in their beliefs and policy preferences, and despite the changing racial, ethnic and religous composition of the American populace.
    When is this demographic shift going to manifest itself? Yes, we elected a Black president. Yes, gay marriage is gaining ground. Yes, it seems the war on drugs is waning in certain respects, mainly where marajuana is concerned.
    But Republicans are doing well, not just in federal-level elections, but in local and state elections – perhaps even moreso at the state and local levels. And that has not only more immediate implication for the kinds of policies people around the country will live under, but also longer-term implications for who runs for and wins national offices.
    State legislators make the rules for elections and become members of congress and governors. Members of congress and governors become presidents.
    I just don’t see things getting better for liberals/progressives in this country anytime soon.

  262. I just don’t see things getting better for liberals/progressives in this country anytime soon.
    barring major scandal, it’s going to be quite a long time till the Dems can hope to get the House back, simply because of the way the districts have been gerrymandered. that was the smartest thing the GOP did: get control of state legislatures in time to draw the best possible districts for themselves.
    this could have been prevented, if nominal Dems would vote. but they choose not to.

  263. I just don’t see things getting better for liberals/progressives in this country anytime soon.
    barring major scandal, it’s going to be quite a long time till the Dems can hope to get the House back, simply because of the way the districts have been gerrymandered. that was the smartest thing the GOP did: get control of state legislatures in time to draw the best possible districts for themselves.
    this could have been prevented, if nominal Dems would vote. but they choose not to.

  264. I just don’t see things getting better for liberals/progressives in this country anytime soon.
    barring major scandal, it’s going to be quite a long time till the Dems can hope to get the House back, simply because of the way the districts have been gerrymandered. that was the smartest thing the GOP did: get control of state legislatures in time to draw the best possible districts for themselves.
    this could have been prevented, if nominal Dems would vote. but they choose not to.

  265. as Ugh told me the first time I commented here at OBWI “it’s tribal”.
    I tried to get out the vote for Ami Bera against my highschool classmate Doug Ose. It is still to close to call but the California vote was down to less than half.
    Perhaps we can put our faith in the women’s vote in 2016 but I doubt it.
    It appears I was unfriended by all my R-Tribe friends over politics and all of them were women.

  266. as Ugh told me the first time I commented here at OBWI “it’s tribal”.
    I tried to get out the vote for Ami Bera against my highschool classmate Doug Ose. It is still to close to call but the California vote was down to less than half.
    Perhaps we can put our faith in the women’s vote in 2016 but I doubt it.
    It appears I was unfriended by all my R-Tribe friends over politics and all of them were women.

  267. as Ugh told me the first time I commented here at OBWI “it’s tribal”.
    I tried to get out the vote for Ami Bera against my highschool classmate Doug Ose. It is still to close to call but the California vote was down to less than half.
    Perhaps we can put our faith in the women’s vote in 2016 but I doubt it.
    It appears I was unfriended by all my R-Tribe friends over politics and all of them were women.

  268. Maybe it’s the heat of the moment, but I’m starting to lose my belief in that, despite the survey results showing younger people being more liberal or progressive in their beliefs and policy preferences, and despite the changing racial, ethnic and religous composition of the American populace.
    I would be curious to see if the young people today are more Liberal or progressive than we were, or my kids were. My youngest is incredibly liberal, my oldest not so much anymore. I think generations have hot button social issues, civil rights for mine, gay marriage today, that don’t end with their maturing. I believe on a broader range of topics , particularly economics, people get more conservative as they age. They also get less likely to want massive social change period.
    I am not sure Democrats will ever get quite what they hope for out of demographic change, as the country becomes more ethnically diverse then the “progressive” platform of equality gets less important as white men have less power by natural attrition, and without that plank, the conservative blacks and Hispanics(etc.) tendency will vote conservative. Just some thoughts.

  269. Maybe it’s the heat of the moment, but I’m starting to lose my belief in that, despite the survey results showing younger people being more liberal or progressive in their beliefs and policy preferences, and despite the changing racial, ethnic and religous composition of the American populace.
    I would be curious to see if the young people today are more Liberal or progressive than we were, or my kids were. My youngest is incredibly liberal, my oldest not so much anymore. I think generations have hot button social issues, civil rights for mine, gay marriage today, that don’t end with their maturing. I believe on a broader range of topics , particularly economics, people get more conservative as they age. They also get less likely to want massive social change period.
    I am not sure Democrats will ever get quite what they hope for out of demographic change, as the country becomes more ethnically diverse then the “progressive” platform of equality gets less important as white men have less power by natural attrition, and without that plank, the conservative blacks and Hispanics(etc.) tendency will vote conservative. Just some thoughts.

  270. Maybe it’s the heat of the moment, but I’m starting to lose my belief in that, despite the survey results showing younger people being more liberal or progressive in their beliefs and policy preferences, and despite the changing racial, ethnic and religous composition of the American populace.
    I would be curious to see if the young people today are more Liberal or progressive than we were, or my kids were. My youngest is incredibly liberal, my oldest not so much anymore. I think generations have hot button social issues, civil rights for mine, gay marriage today, that don’t end with their maturing. I believe on a broader range of topics , particularly economics, people get more conservative as they age. They also get less likely to want massive social change period.
    I am not sure Democrats will ever get quite what they hope for out of demographic change, as the country becomes more ethnically diverse then the “progressive” platform of equality gets less important as white men have less power by natural attrition, and without that plank, the conservative blacks and Hispanics(etc.) tendency will vote conservative. Just some thoughts.

  277. There are fewer voters willing to call themselves Republicans than there are calling themselves Democrats. But both brands are on a decline.
    Young adults tend toward being social liberals. And fiscal liberals until they are reminded where all the money has to come from. Then they tend to be more fiscally conservative.

  278. There are fewer voters willing to call themselves Republicans than there are calling themselves Democrats. But both brands are on a decline.
    Young adults tend toward being social liberals. And fiscal liberals until they are reminded where all the money has to come from. Then they tend to be more fiscally conservative.

  279. There are fewer voters willing to call themselves Republicans than there are calling themselves Democrats. But both brands are on a decline.
    Young adults tend toward being social liberals. And fiscal liberals until they are reminded where all the money has to come from. Then they tend to be more fiscally conservative.

  280. most of what Marty said.
    all the talk about the GOP aging and whiting itself out of existence seems completely nuts to me. if it comes down to a fight for its existence, the GOP will find a way to shed the things that minorities currently find so objectionable. and conservatism isn’t going away.

  281. most of what Marty said.
    all the talk about the GOP aging and whiting itself out of existence seems completely nuts to me. if it comes down to a fight for its existence, the GOP will find a way to shed the things that minorities currently find so objectionable. and conservatism isn’t going away.

  282. most of what Marty said.
    all the talk about the GOP aging and whiting itself out of existence seems completely nuts to me. if it comes down to a fight for its existence, the GOP will find a way to shed the things that minorities currently find so objectionable. and conservatism isn’t going away.

  283. Perhaps we should change congress to make gerrymandering more difficult:
    sounds good to me.
    i think the last PP of that article says it all, though: representatives are unlikely to vote to lessen their own power.

  284. Perhaps we should change congress to make gerrymandering more difficult:
    sounds good to me.
    i think the last PP of that article says it all, though: representatives are unlikely to vote to lessen their own power.

  285. Perhaps we should change congress to make gerrymandering more difficult:
    sounds good to me.
    i think the last PP of that article says it all, though: representatives are unlikely to vote to lessen their own power.

  286. “Perhaps we should change congress to make gerrymandering more difficult”
    Reforms I would like to see:
    I would favor at large proportional representation. It doesn’t make gerrymandering more difficult, it makes gerrymandering impossible. Perhaps that’s why the federal government passed a law prohibiting states from using it for chosing their House members?
    In particular, I would like to see votes treated like revokable proxies; Each candidate would get a vote in the legislature proportional to the number of votes they recieved in the election, and voters who became disgruntled with a particular office holder could revoke that proxy at any time.
    I also favor the creation of an election corps, modeled on the Peace Corps, where young people, prior to embarking on their careers, could be trained in election administration, and then be randomly asigned precincts to administer the elections of. Realistically, who is best placed to commit ballot fraud? Elections officials. Randomly assigning them would make coordinating fraud extremely difficult.
    Finally, and very timely in regards to what will be happening over the next couple of months, I would take away an incumbent’s vote the instant they lost reelection. The Senate would have no trouble mustering a quorum, on a third of the Senators facing election in any given election year. And if enough House members lost reelection that a quorum could not be assembled, I’d say that would be significant enough to justify shutting the institution down until the new members took their places.
    None of this is likely to happen without a Constitutional convention, though I think the last of these would be a nifty proposal for the Republicans to advance after they take over.

  287. “Perhaps we should change congress to make gerrymandering more difficult”
    Reforms I would like to see:
    I would favor at large proportional representation. It doesn’t make gerrymandering more difficult, it makes gerrymandering impossible. Perhaps that’s why the federal government passed a law prohibiting states from using it for chosing their House members?
    In particular, I would like to see votes treated like revokable proxies; Each candidate would get a vote in the legislature proportional to the number of votes they recieved in the election, and voters who became disgruntled with a particular office holder could revoke that proxy at any time.
    I also favor the creation of an election corps, modeled on the Peace Corps, where young people, prior to embarking on their careers, could be trained in election administration, and then be randomly asigned precincts to administer the elections of. Realistically, who is best placed to commit ballot fraud? Elections officials. Randomly assigning them would make coordinating fraud extremely difficult.
    Finally, and very timely in regards to what will be happening over the next couple of months, I would take away an incumbent’s vote the instant they lost reelection. The Senate would have no trouble mustering a quorum, on a third of the Senators facing election in any given election year. And if enough House members lost reelection that a quorum could not be assembled, I’d say that would be significant enough to justify shutting the institution down until the new members took their places.
    None of this is likely to happen without a Constitutional convention, though I think the last of these would be a nifty proposal for the Republicans to advance after they take over.

  288. “Perhaps we should change congress to make gerrymandering more difficult”
    Reforms I would like to see:
    I would favor at large proportional representation. It doesn’t make gerrymandering more difficult, it makes gerrymandering impossible. Perhaps that’s why the federal government passed a law prohibiting states from using it for chosing their House members?
    In particular, I would like to see votes treated like revokable proxies; Each candidate would get a vote in the legislature proportional to the number of votes they recieved in the election, and voters who became disgruntled with a particular office holder could revoke that proxy at any time.
    I also favor the creation of an election corps, modeled on the Peace Corps, where young people, prior to embarking on their careers, could be trained in election administration, and then be randomly asigned precincts to administer the elections of. Realistically, who is best placed to commit ballot fraud? Elections officials. Randomly assigning them would make coordinating fraud extremely difficult.
    Finally, and very timely in regards to what will be happening over the next couple of months, I would take away an incumbent’s vote the instant they lost reelection. The Senate would have no trouble mustering a quorum, on a third of the Senators facing election in any given election year. And if enough House members lost reelection that a quorum could not be assembled, I’d say that would be significant enough to justify shutting the institution down until the new members took their places.
    None of this is likely to happen without a Constitutional convention, though I think the last of these would be a nifty proposal for the Republicans to advance after they take over.

  289. I believe on a broader range of topics , particularly economics, people get more conservative as they age.
    True dat.

  290. I believe on a broader range of topics , particularly economics, people get more conservative as they age.
    True dat.

  291. I believe on a broader range of topics , particularly economics, people get more conservative as they age.
    True dat.

  292. I might as well make it a double and say I like Brett’s last comment. An unusual day on ObWi, this is. ;^)

  293. I might as well make it a double and say I like Brett’s last comment. An unusual day on ObWi, this is. ;^)

  294. I might as well make it a double and say I like Brett’s last comment. An unusual day on ObWi, this is. ;^)

  295. Of course people get more conservative as they age. After you’ve had ‘good’ ideas blow up in your face over and over, the appeal of leaving things that work well enough alone starts to grow on you.

  296. Of course people get more conservative as they age. After you’ve had ‘good’ ideas blow up in your face over and over, the appeal of leaving things that work well enough alone starts to grow on you.

  297. Of course people get more conservative as they age. After you’ve had ‘good’ ideas blow up in your face over and over, the appeal of leaving things that work well enough alone starts to grow on you.

  298. Maybe it’s worth coming back, if only to tease the Count a bit.
    How’s this? Senate Republicans should be as bipartisan as Reid was
    I guess I missed the part where the Count was calling on Republicans to be “bipartisan”.

  299. Maybe it’s worth coming back, if only to tease the Count a bit.
    How’s this? Senate Republicans should be as bipartisan as Reid was
    I guess I missed the part where the Count was calling on Republicans to be “bipartisan”.

  300. Maybe it’s worth coming back, if only to tease the Count a bit.
    How’s this? Senate Republicans should be as bipartisan as Reid was
    I guess I missed the part where the Count was calling on Republicans to be “bipartisan”.

  301. I believe on a broader range of topics , particularly economics, people get more conservative as they age.
    This hasn’t been my experience, personally.
    That said, I think it is for most folks. In general I think it has to do with having more to lose.

  302. I believe on a broader range of topics , particularly economics, people get more conservative as they age.
    This hasn’t been my experience, personally.
    That said, I think it is for most folks. In general I think it has to do with having more to lose.

  303. I believe on a broader range of topics , particularly economics, people get more conservative as they age.
    This hasn’t been my experience, personally.
    That said, I think it is for most folks. In general I think it has to do with having more to lose.

  304. After you’ve had ‘good’ ideas blow up in your face over and over, the appeal of leaving things that work well enough alone starts to grow on you.
    An odd statement coming from you.

  305. After you’ve had ‘good’ ideas blow up in your face over and over, the appeal of leaving things that work well enough alone starts to grow on you.
    An odd statement coming from you.

  306. After you’ve had ‘good’ ideas blow up in your face over and over, the appeal of leaving things that work well enough alone starts to grow on you.
    An odd statement coming from you.

  307. After you’ve had ‘good’ ideas blow up in your face over and over, the appeal of leaving things that work well enough alone starts to grow on you.
    if only everyone agreed on how to evaluate “well enough”. but they don’t.
    some people think “well enough for me” is fine. some think it should mean “well enough for everyone”.
    that’s what turns people into conservatives: when they start to think I Got Mine, Jack feels better than We Should All Have Some.

  308. After you’ve had ‘good’ ideas blow up in your face over and over, the appeal of leaving things that work well enough alone starts to grow on you.
    if only everyone agreed on how to evaluate “well enough”. but they don’t.
    some people think “well enough for me” is fine. some think it should mean “well enough for everyone”.
    that’s what turns people into conservatives: when they start to think I Got Mine, Jack feels better than We Should All Have Some.

  309. After you’ve had ‘good’ ideas blow up in your face over and over, the appeal of leaving things that work well enough alone starts to grow on you.
    if only everyone agreed on how to evaluate “well enough”. but they don’t.
    some people think “well enough for me” is fine. some think it should mean “well enough for everyone”.
    that’s what turns people into conservatives: when they start to think I Got Mine, Jack feels better than We Should All Have Some.

  310. i think the last PP of that article says it all, though: representatives are unlikely to vote to lessen their own power.
    Well, sure. Unless its an issue voters care about and are paying attention to. Did the STOCK act (full of loopholes though it may be) pass congress overwhelmingly because it increased congressional power? No. It passed because people were paying attention to the issue and a vote against it would look terrible.
    However, I’ve noticed that getting the populace at large to think that more congresscritters would be good is often a tough sell.

  311. i think the last PP of that article says it all, though: representatives are unlikely to vote to lessen their own power.
    Well, sure. Unless its an issue voters care about and are paying attention to. Did the STOCK act (full of loopholes though it may be) pass congress overwhelmingly because it increased congressional power? No. It passed because people were paying attention to the issue and a vote against it would look terrible.
    However, I’ve noticed that getting the populace at large to think that more congresscritters would be good is often a tough sell.

  312. i think the last PP of that article says it all, though: representatives are unlikely to vote to lessen their own power.
    Well, sure. Unless its an issue voters care about and are paying attention to. Did the STOCK act (full of loopholes though it may be) pass congress overwhelmingly because it increased congressional power? No. It passed because people were paying attention to the issue and a vote against it would look terrible.
    However, I’ve noticed that getting the populace at large to think that more congresscritters would be good is often a tough sell.

  313. “This hasn’t been my experience, personally.”
    Funny, when I reread my comment I could hear this answer from you in my head.

  314. “This hasn’t been my experience, personally.”
    Funny, when I reread my comment I could hear this answer from you in my head.

  315. “This hasn’t been my experience, personally.”
    Funny, when I reread my comment I could hear this answer from you in my head.

  316. I would favor at large proportional representation.
    If you think people in low-population areas are unhappy now, just wait until we try that one on.
    I think we should define Congressional districts by dividing each state up using a Voronoi tessellation. Pick the N areas of highest population density as your seed points, where “N” is the number of reps your state should have.
    That’ll mix things up pretty randomly, for good or ill.

  317. I would favor at large proportional representation.
    If you think people in low-population areas are unhappy now, just wait until we try that one on.
    I think we should define Congressional districts by dividing each state up using a Voronoi tessellation. Pick the N areas of highest population density as your seed points, where “N” is the number of reps your state should have.
    That’ll mix things up pretty randomly, for good or ill.

  318. I would favor at large proportional representation.
    If you think people in low-population areas are unhappy now, just wait until we try that one on.
    I think we should define Congressional districts by dividing each state up using a Voronoi tessellation. Pick the N areas of highest population density as your seed points, where “N” is the number of reps your state should have.
    That’ll mix things up pretty randomly, for good or ill.

  319. Funny, when I reread my comment I could hear this answer from you in my head.
    There’s some value in being predictable.

  320. Funny, when I reread my comment I could hear this answer from you in my head.
    There’s some value in being predictable.

  321. Funny, when I reread my comment I could hear this answer from you in my head.
    There’s some value in being predictable.

  322. Manhattan distance. I like that. I keep thinking about crows flying into buildings as the alternative.

  323. Manhattan distance. I like that. I keep thinking about crows flying into buildings as the alternative.

  324. Manhattan distance. I like that. I keep thinking about crows flying into buildings as the alternative.

  325. Russell, while that might deal with gerrymandering, it would do nothing about the voting system being unrepresentative due to some areas being totally one sided in their distribution of preferences.
    Half the votes would still be wasted in an area where 100% of the people voted the same way.
    At large seats in a PR system nicely weight all votes the same regardless of the local proportion of votes.
    And, of course, any “first past the post” system disadvantages third parties regardless of district shape, and encouraging the major parties to break up into their constituent parts is the best hope to rationalize our politics.

  326. Russell, while that might deal with gerrymandering, it would do nothing about the voting system being unrepresentative due to some areas being totally one sided in their distribution of preferences.
    Half the votes would still be wasted in an area where 100% of the people voted the same way.
    At large seats in a PR system nicely weight all votes the same regardless of the local proportion of votes.
    And, of course, any “first past the post” system disadvantages third parties regardless of district shape, and encouraging the major parties to break up into their constituent parts is the best hope to rationalize our politics.

  327. Russell, while that might deal with gerrymandering, it would do nothing about the voting system being unrepresentative due to some areas being totally one sided in their distribution of preferences.
    Half the votes would still be wasted in an area where 100% of the people voted the same way.
    At large seats in a PR system nicely weight all votes the same regardless of the local proportion of votes.
    And, of course, any “first past the post” system disadvantages third parties regardless of district shape, and encouraging the major parties to break up into their constituent parts is the best hope to rationalize our politics.

  328. it would do nothing about the voting system being unrepresentative due to some areas being totally one sided in their distribution of preferences.
    To be honest, my proposal was offered as something of a joke.
    That said, your point is completely valid.
    At large seats in a PR system nicely weight all votes the same regardless of the local proportion of votes.
    Yes, I see what you’re saying now.
    PR representation would be fine with me.

  329. it would do nothing about the voting system being unrepresentative due to some areas being totally one sided in their distribution of preferences.
    To be honest, my proposal was offered as something of a joke.
    That said, your point is completely valid.
    At large seats in a PR system nicely weight all votes the same regardless of the local proportion of votes.
    Yes, I see what you’re saying now.
    PR representation would be fine with me.

  330. it would do nothing about the voting system being unrepresentative due to some areas being totally one sided in their distribution of preferences.
    To be honest, my proposal was offered as something of a joke.
    That said, your point is completely valid.
    At large seats in a PR system nicely weight all votes the same regardless of the local proportion of votes.
    Yes, I see what you’re saying now.
    PR representation would be fine with me.

  331. Pick the N areas of highest population density as your seed points, where “N” is the number of reps your state should have.
    I would imagine that would result in seats centered in urban areas, with surrounding rural areas probably swept into the larger populations of the cities.

  332. Pick the N areas of highest population density as your seed points, where “N” is the number of reps your state should have.
    I would imagine that would result in seats centered in urban areas, with surrounding rural areas probably swept into the larger populations of the cities.

  333. Pick the N areas of highest population density as your seed points, where “N” is the number of reps your state should have.
    I would imagine that would result in seats centered in urban areas, with surrounding rural areas probably swept into the larger populations of the cities.

  334. To be honest, my proposal was offered as something of a joke.
    Whoops. Sorry, missed this. My last comment probably irrelevant.

  335. To be honest, my proposal was offered as something of a joke.
    Whoops. Sorry, missed this. My last comment probably irrelevant.

  336. To be honest, my proposal was offered as something of a joke.
    Whoops. Sorry, missed this. My last comment probably irrelevant.

  337. if only everyone agreed on how to evaluate “well enough”. but they don’t.
    some people think “well enough for me” is fine. some think it should mean “well enough for everyone”.
    (There must be a Law of the Internets that is a parallel to Godwin’s and that could be applied to the following, but here it goes.)
    Slavery worked well enough for some people, no?

  338. if only everyone agreed on how to evaluate “well enough”. but they don’t.
    some people think “well enough for me” is fine. some think it should mean “well enough for everyone”.
    (There must be a Law of the Internets that is a parallel to Godwin’s and that could be applied to the following, but here it goes.)
    Slavery worked well enough for some people, no?

  339. if only everyone agreed on how to evaluate “well enough”. but they don’t.
    some people think “well enough for me” is fine. some think it should mean “well enough for everyone”.
    (There must be a Law of the Internets that is a parallel to Godwin’s and that could be applied to the following, but here it goes.)
    Slavery worked well enough for some people, no?

  343. cleek (11:36): barring major scandal, it’s going to be quite a long time till the Dems can hope to get the House back, simply because of the way the districts have been gerrymandered.
    It’s actually a natural result of voting patterns. Last time around, the state legislatures which did redistricting were chosen in a mid-term election. So the Republicans did well, and were able to do the gerrymandering. Next time, the state legislatures doing the redistricting will be chosen in a Presidential election year. So the Democrats will do well, and have a shot at doingthe redistricting. (Except, of course, in the places which hav e taken the drawing of districts out of the hands of the politicians.)
    Which means that the Democrats probably won’t get control of the House until 2022 (the election after the 20202 census).
    Perhaps the most significant political change in the past few decades is this. It used to be that politicians from both parties got together in the state legislature and drew districts which would make all of them individually safe. Now, the majority party draws districts which give them a safe majority.

  344. cleek (11:36): barring major scandal, it’s going to be quite a long time till the Dems can hope to get the House back, simply because of the way the districts have been gerrymandered.
    It’s actually a natural result of voting patterns. Last time around, the state legislatures which did redistricting were chosen in a mid-term election. So the Republicans did well, and were able to do the gerrymandering. Next time, the state legislatures doing the redistricting will be chosen in a Presidential election year. So the Democrats will do well, and have a shot at doingthe redistricting. (Except, of course, in the places which hav e taken the drawing of districts out of the hands of the politicians.)
    Which means that the Democrats probably won’t get control of the House until 2022 (the election after the 20202 census).
    Perhaps the most significant political change in the past few decades is this. It used to be that politicians from both parties got together in the state legislature and drew districts which would make all of them individually safe. Now, the majority party draws districts which give them a safe majority.

  345. cleek (11:36): barring major scandal, it’s going to be quite a long time till the Dems can hope to get the House back, simply because of the way the districts have been gerrymandered.
    It’s actually a natural result of voting patterns. Last time around, the state legislatures which did redistricting were chosen in a mid-term election. So the Republicans did well, and were able to do the gerrymandering. Next time, the state legislatures doing the redistricting will be chosen in a Presidential election year. So the Democrats will do well, and have a shot at doingthe redistricting. (Except, of course, in the places which hav e taken the drawing of districts out of the hands of the politicians.)
    Which means that the Democrats probably won’t get control of the House until 2022 (the election after the 20202 census).
    Perhaps the most significant political change in the past few decades is this. It used to be that politicians from both parties got together in the state legislature and drew districts which would make all of them individually safe. Now, the majority party draws districts which give them a safe majority.

  346. But efforts to use the pre-Civil War era as some sort of dark mirror for current events should be viewed as violating some sort of slavery codicil to Godwin’s Law, which concerns the irrationality of comparing modern political actors to Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany.
    I wish Gary Farber were still posting. He’d be much better at explaining that there’s no “violating” Godwin’s Law by comparing anyone to Hitler or Nazis.
    As I understand it, Godwin’s Law simply states that the probability of any internet discussion coming to involve Hitler/Nazis at some point approches unity as the discussion continues.
    And that’s why the GOP did so well on Tuesday.

  347. But efforts to use the pre-Civil War era as some sort of dark mirror for current events should be viewed as violating some sort of slavery codicil to Godwin’s Law, which concerns the irrationality of comparing modern political actors to Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany.
    I wish Gary Farber were still posting. He’d be much better at explaining that there’s no “violating” Godwin’s Law by comparing anyone to Hitler or Nazis.
    As I understand it, Godwin’s Law simply states that the probability of any internet discussion coming to involve Hitler/Nazis at some point approches unity as the discussion continues.
    And that’s why the GOP did so well on Tuesday.

  348. But efforts to use the pre-Civil War era as some sort of dark mirror for current events should be viewed as violating some sort of slavery codicil to Godwin’s Law, which concerns the irrationality of comparing modern political actors to Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany.
    I wish Gary Farber were still posting. He’d be much better at explaining that there’s no “violating” Godwin’s Law by comparing anyone to Hitler or Nazis.
    As I understand it, Godwin’s Law simply states that the probability of any internet discussion coming to involve Hitler/Nazis at some point approches unity as the discussion continues.
    And that’s why the GOP did so well on Tuesday.

  349. I would imagine that would result in seats centered in urban areas, with surrounding rural areas probably swept into the larger populations of the cities.
    Actually, were we to do it, it would probably distribute the rural vs urban populations reasonably evenly.
    There are about 1,424,983 reasons it would never happen, many of them quite reasonable, but favoring urbanites is probably not one of them.
    The main reason is probably that it’s just too geeky for most folks’ comfort, plus it has a weird name.
    I actually like Brett’s idea pretty well, although (assuming it’s PR within each state) small states are still gonna be stuck with dividing their proportions between 1 or 2 reps.
    Maybe the reps could represent some folks M-W-F, and other folks on T-Th.

  350. I would imagine that would result in seats centered in urban areas, with surrounding rural areas probably swept into the larger populations of the cities.
    Actually, were we to do it, it would probably distribute the rural vs urban populations reasonably evenly.
    There are about 1,424,983 reasons it would never happen, many of them quite reasonable, but favoring urbanites is probably not one of them.
    The main reason is probably that it’s just too geeky for most folks’ comfort, plus it has a weird name.
    I actually like Brett’s idea pretty well, although (assuming it’s PR within each state) small states are still gonna be stuck with dividing their proportions between 1 or 2 reps.
    Maybe the reps could represent some folks M-W-F, and other folks on T-Th.

  351. I would imagine that would result in seats centered in urban areas, with surrounding rural areas probably swept into the larger populations of the cities.
    Actually, were we to do it, it would probably distribute the rural vs urban populations reasonably evenly.
    There are about 1,424,983 reasons it would never happen, many of them quite reasonable, but favoring urbanites is probably not one of them.
    The main reason is probably that it’s just too geeky for most folks’ comfort, plus it has a weird name.
    I actually like Brett’s idea pretty well, although (assuming it’s PR within each state) small states are still gonna be stuck with dividing their proportions between 1 or 2 reps.
    Maybe the reps could represent some folks M-W-F, and other folks on T-Th.

  352. i like the idea of restricting districts based on a minimum level of ‘compactness’.
    we could require a minimum area to bounding rectangle ratio (to eliminate snake-like or near-fractal districts); or maybe limit the number of non-external sides to some small number (hard to get too creative if you only use five lines); or say that you can’t have a district with more than one acute angle between any two non-border sides. anything, to eliminate the power of the map makers.
    because the idea that politicians should be allowed to choose their opponents’ voters is just crazy.

  353. i like the idea of restricting districts based on a minimum level of ‘compactness’.
    we could require a minimum area to bounding rectangle ratio (to eliminate snake-like or near-fractal districts); or maybe limit the number of non-external sides to some small number (hard to get too creative if you only use five lines); or say that you can’t have a district with more than one acute angle between any two non-border sides. anything, to eliminate the power of the map makers.
    because the idea that politicians should be allowed to choose their opponents’ voters is just crazy.

  354. i like the idea of restricting districts based on a minimum level of ‘compactness’.
    we could require a minimum area to bounding rectangle ratio (to eliminate snake-like or near-fractal districts); or maybe limit the number of non-external sides to some small number (hard to get too creative if you only use five lines); or say that you can’t have a district with more than one acute angle between any two non-border sides. anything, to eliminate the power of the map makers.
    because the idea that politicians should be allowed to choose their opponents’ voters is just crazy.

  355. I think that all of these redistricting ideas are ingenious. Unfortunately, I don’t think they will happen anytime soon. The fact that most people in my vicinity, and in an outlying precinct where I did some time on election day, all voted Democratic, but a teaparty Republican won the day with 61% of the vote (after a redistricting that occurred in 2010 and took a wonderful Rep away from us), how can this situation ever change?
    Meanwhile, I plan to catch up on reading, movies and tv series. It’s getting exhausting to worry about people who don’t bother to vote. Yeah, I know some of them, and they’re good people, but holy s&*#,

  356. I think that all of these redistricting ideas are ingenious. Unfortunately, I don’t think they will happen anytime soon. The fact that most people in my vicinity, and in an outlying precinct where I did some time on election day, all voted Democratic, but a teaparty Republican won the day with 61% of the vote (after a redistricting that occurred in 2010 and took a wonderful Rep away from us), how can this situation ever change?
    Meanwhile, I plan to catch up on reading, movies and tv series. It’s getting exhausting to worry about people who don’t bother to vote. Yeah, I know some of them, and they’re good people, but holy s&*#,

  357. I think that all of these redistricting ideas are ingenious. Unfortunately, I don’t think they will happen anytime soon. The fact that most people in my vicinity, and in an outlying precinct where I did some time on election day, all voted Democratic, but a teaparty Republican won the day with 61% of the vote (after a redistricting that occurred in 2010 and took a wonderful Rep away from us), how can this situation ever change?
    Meanwhile, I plan to catch up on reading, movies and tv series. It’s getting exhausting to worry about people who don’t bother to vote. Yeah, I know some of them, and they’re good people, but holy s&*#,

  358. PR, plus either increasing the size of Congress enough so that every state would be guaranteed 2 reps, or amendment to guarantee 2 reps+increasing Congress modestly, enough that no state would immediately lose reps as a consequence of small states getting 2.
    Then the next question is, what’s the %vote threshold or formula to earn a rep? 50/N=%, with the top N finishers winning the seats (where N=the number of reps per state) would mean you need (at least) 25% of vote in a two-rep state, 16.7% in a three-rep state, etc. Supporters of smaller parties in small states would still have to vote tactically (or lesser of two/lesser of three evils if you will), but in a state like Georgia the threshold could be as low as 3.2%.
    Next up, how would parties choose and order their slate of candidates?

  359. PR, plus either increasing the size of Congress enough so that every state would be guaranteed 2 reps, or amendment to guarantee 2 reps+increasing Congress modestly, enough that no state would immediately lose reps as a consequence of small states getting 2.
    Then the next question is, what’s the %vote threshold or formula to earn a rep? 50/N=%, with the top N finishers winning the seats (where N=the number of reps per state) would mean you need (at least) 25% of vote in a two-rep state, 16.7% in a three-rep state, etc. Supporters of smaller parties in small states would still have to vote tactically (or lesser of two/lesser of three evils if you will), but in a state like Georgia the threshold could be as low as 3.2%.
    Next up, how would parties choose and order their slate of candidates?

  360. PR, plus either increasing the size of Congress enough so that every state would be guaranteed 2 reps, or amendment to guarantee 2 reps+increasing Congress modestly, enough that no state would immediately lose reps as a consequence of small states getting 2.
    Then the next question is, what’s the %vote threshold or formula to earn a rep? 50/N=%, with the top N finishers winning the seats (where N=the number of reps per state) would mean you need (at least) 25% of vote in a two-rep state, 16.7% in a three-rep state, etc. Supporters of smaller parties in small states would still have to vote tactically (or lesser of two/lesser of three evils if you will), but in a state like Georgia the threshold could be as low as 3.2%.
    Next up, how would parties choose and order their slate of candidates?

  361. russell:
    Actually, were we to do it, it would probably distribute the rural vs urban populations reasonably evenly.
    I hate to be dense, but I just don’t get this at all. I understand its not a proposal you’re seriously forwarding, so I’m sorry if I’m going on about it, I’m just interested in the geeky aspect of it.
    Take Oregon for example, which currently gets 5 seats and a population concentrated at several cities along Willamette valley (http://www.worldofmaps.net/en/north-america/oregon-usa/map-population-density-oregon.htm ). The voronai diagram is basically going to be a series of strips that run across the state.
    By design, each one will have an urban center (the seed point) and large swathes of rural countryside. It seems likely that in each case the rural population would be far smaller than the urban population.
    But perhaps I’m missing something.
    I actually like Brett’s idea pretty well, although (assuming it’s PR within each state) small states are still gonna be stuck with dividing their proportions between 1 or 2 reps.
    I think a key feature would be to dramatically increase the number of reps. But yes, I think PR would be an improvement.

  362. russell:
    Actually, were we to do it, it would probably distribute the rural vs urban populations reasonably evenly.
    I hate to be dense, but I just don’t get this at all. I understand its not a proposal you’re seriously forwarding, so I’m sorry if I’m going on about it, I’m just interested in the geeky aspect of it.
    Take Oregon for example, which currently gets 5 seats and a population concentrated at several cities along Willamette valley (http://www.worldofmaps.net/en/north-america/oregon-usa/map-population-density-oregon.htm ). The voronai diagram is basically going to be a series of strips that run across the state.
    By design, each one will have an urban center (the seed point) and large swathes of rural countryside. It seems likely that in each case the rural population would be far smaller than the urban population.
    But perhaps I’m missing something.
    I actually like Brett’s idea pretty well, although (assuming it’s PR within each state) small states are still gonna be stuck with dividing their proportions between 1 or 2 reps.
    I think a key feature would be to dramatically increase the number of reps. But yes, I think PR would be an improvement.

  363. russell:
    Actually, were we to do it, it would probably distribute the rural vs urban populations reasonably evenly.
    I hate to be dense, but I just don’t get this at all. I understand its not a proposal you’re seriously forwarding, so I’m sorry if I’m going on about it, I’m just interested in the geeky aspect of it.
    Take Oregon for example, which currently gets 5 seats and a population concentrated at several cities along Willamette valley (http://www.worldofmaps.net/en/north-america/oregon-usa/map-population-density-oregon.htm ). The voronai diagram is basically going to be a series of strips that run across the state.
    By design, each one will have an urban center (the seed point) and large swathes of rural countryside. It seems likely that in each case the rural population would be far smaller than the urban population.
    But perhaps I’m missing something.
    I actually like Brett’s idea pretty well, although (assuming it’s PR within each state) small states are still gonna be stuck with dividing their proportions between 1 or 2 reps.
    I think a key feature would be to dramatically increase the number of reps. But yes, I think PR would be an improvement.

  364. It seems likely that in each case the rural population would be far smaller than the urban population.
    Yes, but the mix of urban vs rural in each district would be roughly comparable.
    That’s basically what I was getting at by a “reasonably even” distribution. No cramming all of the urbans into one district, and the rurals into another.
    Or, no cramming all of demographic A into one district, and all of demographic B into another, most likely, unless completely distinct demographics were constellated consistently around different population centers.
    So, a (perhaps) plausible way to address gerrymandering, specifically. Although still prone to lots of other problems.
    In any case, just another ill-advised attempt at humor on my part.

  365. It seems likely that in each case the rural population would be far smaller than the urban population.
    Yes, but the mix of urban vs rural in each district would be roughly comparable.
    That’s basically what I was getting at by a “reasonably even” distribution. No cramming all of the urbans into one district, and the rurals into another.
    Or, no cramming all of demographic A into one district, and all of demographic B into another, most likely, unless completely distinct demographics were constellated consistently around different population centers.
    So, a (perhaps) plausible way to address gerrymandering, specifically. Although still prone to lots of other problems.
    In any case, just another ill-advised attempt at humor on my part.

  366. It seems likely that in each case the rural population would be far smaller than the urban population.
    Yes, but the mix of urban vs rural in each district would be roughly comparable.
    That’s basically what I was getting at by a “reasonably even” distribution. No cramming all of the urbans into one district, and the rurals into another.
    Or, no cramming all of demographic A into one district, and all of demographic B into another, most likely, unless completely distinct demographics were constellated consistently around different population centers.
    So, a (perhaps) plausible way to address gerrymandering, specifically. Although still prone to lots of other problems.
    In any case, just another ill-advised attempt at humor on my part.

  367. So, basically, we don’t give a crap about rural issues the cities all that matters? Oh, wait, thats Massachusetts today.

  368. So, basically, we don’t give a crap about rural issues the cities all that matters? Oh, wait, thats Massachusetts today.

  369. So, basically, we don’t give a crap about rural issues the cities all that matters? Oh, wait, thats Massachusetts today.

  370. Suppose we take up Brett’s “proxy” idea this way:
    Double the size of Congress. Do it by one-to-one replication: every Congressional district gets 2 representatives, every state gets 4 senators. The 1st- and 2nd-place finishers in each jurisdiction get the seats. In office, they each get to cast as many votes as they received in the election.
    That would seem to reduce the pay-off of gerrymandering. On the other hand, it would increase the pay-off of voter suppression. (As long as it’s your opponent’s voters you’re suppressing.) But the main effect would be this: Massachusetts Republicans and South Carolina Democrats would get SOME representation in Congress.
    –TP

  371. Suppose we take up Brett’s “proxy” idea this way:
    Double the size of Congress. Do it by one-to-one replication: every Congressional district gets 2 representatives, every state gets 4 senators. The 1st- and 2nd-place finishers in each jurisdiction get the seats. In office, they each get to cast as many votes as they received in the election.
    That would seem to reduce the pay-off of gerrymandering. On the other hand, it would increase the pay-off of voter suppression. (As long as it’s your opponent’s voters you’re suppressing.) But the main effect would be this: Massachusetts Republicans and South Carolina Democrats would get SOME representation in Congress.
    –TP

  372. Suppose we take up Brett’s “proxy” idea this way:
    Double the size of Congress. Do it by one-to-one replication: every Congressional district gets 2 representatives, every state gets 4 senators. The 1st- and 2nd-place finishers in each jurisdiction get the seats. In office, they each get to cast as many votes as they received in the election.
    That would seem to reduce the pay-off of gerrymandering. On the other hand, it would increase the pay-off of voter suppression. (As long as it’s your opponent’s voters you’re suppressing.) But the main effect would be this: Massachusetts Republicans and South Carolina Democrats would get SOME representation in Congress.
    –TP

  373. You’re still designing things to retain the two party system. I think a lot of the dysfunction of our politics results from the way all the wide variety of opinions on different topics get forced into two parties. No matter how you split them up, you get nonsensical coalitions.
    Larger numbers of parties allow people to pick parties that more closely approximate their individual mix of opinion.

  374. You’re still designing things to retain the two party system. I think a lot of the dysfunction of our politics results from the way all the wide variety of opinions on different topics get forced into two parties. No matter how you split them up, you get nonsensical coalitions.
    Larger numbers of parties allow people to pick parties that more closely approximate their individual mix of opinion.

  375. You’re still designing things to retain the two party system. I think a lot of the dysfunction of our politics results from the way all the wide variety of opinions on different topics get forced into two parties. No matter how you split them up, you get nonsensical coalitions.
    Larger numbers of parties allow people to pick parties that more closely approximate their individual mix of opinion.

  376. So, basically, we don’t give a crap about rural issues the cities all that matters? Oh, wait, thats Massachusetts today.
    The rurals, poor in numbers but rich in representation, always have (and will have, all else being equal) disproportionate representation in the US Senate.
    Historically the rurals have been over-represented in State Legislatures also. This is elementary history, folks.
    And yes, rural representation is declining….but that’s because, over time, FEWER PEOPLE LIVE THERE.
    Apparently this is a difficult concept for some to grasp.
    Every day when I rise at dawn, I face the east and bow down in memory to the Warren Court that gave us Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims
    There may indeed be a god.

  377. So, basically, we don’t give a crap about rural issues the cities all that matters? Oh, wait, thats Massachusetts today.
    The rurals, poor in numbers but rich in representation, always have (and will have, all else being equal) disproportionate representation in the US Senate.
    Historically the rurals have been over-represented in State Legislatures also. This is elementary history, folks.
    And yes, rural representation is declining….but that’s because, over time, FEWER PEOPLE LIVE THERE.
    Apparently this is a difficult concept for some to grasp.
    Every day when I rise at dawn, I face the east and bow down in memory to the Warren Court that gave us Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims
    There may indeed be a god.

  378. So, basically, we don’t give a crap about rural issues the cities all that matters? Oh, wait, thats Massachusetts today.
    The rurals, poor in numbers but rich in representation, always have (and will have, all else being equal) disproportionate representation in the US Senate.
    Historically the rurals have been over-represented in State Legislatures also. This is elementary history, folks.
    And yes, rural representation is declining….but that’s because, over time, FEWER PEOPLE LIVE THERE.
    Apparently this is a difficult concept for some to grasp.
    Every day when I rise at dawn, I face the east and bow down in memory to the Warren Court that gave us Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims
    There may indeed be a god.

  379. The basic problem of urban vs rural is the problem of all heterogeneous political units: People living under different circumstances, and thus with different preferences and needs, get shoe horned into having to live under the same policies. It’s not to be solved by weighting representation in favor of one or the other, but instead by permitting them to live under different policies of their own choosing.
    We need a LOT more subsidiarity if we’re going to live together in peace.

  380. The basic problem of urban vs rural is the problem of all heterogeneous political units: People living under different circumstances, and thus with different preferences and needs, get shoe horned into having to live under the same policies. It’s not to be solved by weighting representation in favor of one or the other, but instead by permitting them to live under different policies of their own choosing.
    We need a LOT more subsidiarity if we’re going to live together in peace.

  381. The basic problem of urban vs rural is the problem of all heterogeneous political units: People living under different circumstances, and thus with different preferences and needs, get shoe horned into having to live under the same policies. It’s not to be solved by weighting representation in favor of one or the other, but instead by permitting them to live under different policies of their own choosing.
    We need a LOT more subsidiarity if we’re going to live together in peace.

  385. Without a lower threshold an oversplit will likely result, i.e. a parliament consisting of a very high number of small parties with low incentives to work together because that would damage their niche brand. The Weimar Reichstag or the Israeli Knesseth are examples of that. 3-5% are common, Turkey is overdoing it with iirc 10 or 15%. In Germany the threshold is 5% (an increase got blocked by the Constitutional Court after 1989) and the German parliament has gone from 3* (before the Green party arose to become #4) to 5.5 parties (adding a very volatile Left after the reunion that consists of disgruntled former Social Democrats and the heirs of the former GDR’s ruling party).
    The offcial liberal party (FDP) is on a steep decline with as of yet unkwon outcome after the prominent heads jumped ship when the leadership gave the impression that they (the leaders) were turning their party from liberal to libertarian too much.
    *I count the CSU (our equivalent of the Texas GOP**) and the CDU (main center-right party) as one since they caucus together and there is no CSU outside Bavaria and no CDU inside Bavaria.
    **their official doctrine declares that there can be no democratic party to their right, so their right wing stretches quite a bit in that direction.

  386. Without a lower threshold an oversplit will likely result, i.e. a parliament consisting of a very high number of small parties with low incentives to work together because that would damage their niche brand. The Weimar Reichstag or the Israeli Knesseth are examples of that. 3-5% are common, Turkey is overdoing it with iirc 10 or 15%. In Germany the threshold is 5% (an increase got blocked by the Constitutional Court after 1989) and the German parliament has gone from 3* (before the Green party arose to become #4) to 5.5 parties (adding a very volatile Left after the reunion that consists of disgruntled former Social Democrats and the heirs of the former GDR’s ruling party).
    The offcial liberal party (FDP) is on a steep decline with as of yet unkwon outcome after the prominent heads jumped ship when the leadership gave the impression that they (the leaders) were turning their party from liberal to libertarian too much.
    *I count the CSU (our equivalent of the Texas GOP**) and the CDU (main center-right party) as one since they caucus together and there is no CSU outside Bavaria and no CDU inside Bavaria.
    **their official doctrine declares that there can be no democratic party to their right, so their right wing stretches quite a bit in that direction.

  387. Without a lower threshold an oversplit will likely result, i.e. a parliament consisting of a very high number of small parties with low incentives to work together because that would damage their niche brand. The Weimar Reichstag or the Israeli Knesseth are examples of that. 3-5% are common, Turkey is overdoing it with iirc 10 or 15%. In Germany the threshold is 5% (an increase got blocked by the Constitutional Court after 1989) and the German parliament has gone from 3* (before the Green party arose to become #4) to 5.5 parties (adding a very volatile Left after the reunion that consists of disgruntled former Social Democrats and the heirs of the former GDR’s ruling party).
    The offcial liberal party (FDP) is on a steep decline with as of yet unkwon outcome after the prominent heads jumped ship when the leadership gave the impression that they (the leaders) were turning their party from liberal to libertarian too much.
    *I count the CSU (our equivalent of the Texas GOP**) and the CDU (main center-right party) as one since they caucus together and there is no CSU outside Bavaria and no CDU inside Bavaria.
    **their official doctrine declares that there can be no democratic party to their right, so their right wing stretches quite a bit in that direction.

  388. If you passed a law giving everyone ponies, and it turned out to be unconstitutional, I suppose you’d describe that as, “Supreme court takes everyone’s ponies away”. But the Supreme court isn’t supposed to care if people have ponies. It’s supposed to care if laws are constitutional.
    Of course, in the present instance we’re not even talking about a law that gives everyone ponies. We’re talking about a law which *didn’t* give everyone ponies, but the administration decided to give everyone ponies anyway, and claim that the law dictated it. Again, the job of the Court is not to make sure everyone gets ponies. It’s to make sure the law gets followed.
    If the law says you don’t get a pony, it’s not the judiciary’s job to see to it you get one anyway.

  389. If you passed a law giving everyone ponies, and it turned out to be unconstitutional, I suppose you’d describe that as, “Supreme court takes everyone’s ponies away”. But the Supreme court isn’t supposed to care if people have ponies. It’s supposed to care if laws are constitutional.
    Of course, in the present instance we’re not even talking about a law that gives everyone ponies. We’re talking about a law which *didn’t* give everyone ponies, but the administration decided to give everyone ponies anyway, and claim that the law dictated it. Again, the job of the Court is not to make sure everyone gets ponies. It’s to make sure the law gets followed.
    If the law says you don’t get a pony, it’s not the judiciary’s job to see to it you get one anyway.

  390. If you passed a law giving everyone ponies, and it turned out to be unconstitutional, I suppose you’d describe that as, “Supreme court takes everyone’s ponies away”. But the Supreme court isn’t supposed to care if people have ponies. It’s supposed to care if laws are constitutional.
    Of course, in the present instance we’re not even talking about a law that gives everyone ponies. We’re talking about a law which *didn’t* give everyone ponies, but the administration decided to give everyone ponies anyway, and claim that the law dictated it. Again, the job of the Court is not to make sure everyone gets ponies. It’s to make sure the law gets followed.
    If the law says you don’t get a pony, it’s not the judiciary’s job to see to it you get one anyway.

  391. bobbyp, thanks for that. I’ve spent a lot of time at LGM lately.
    As I mentioned previously, all of this changing of the law regarding redistricting is so interesting if you’re a theoretical sort of person. And we need people to imagine “what if”, so don’t get me wrong. And surely it will help if we find a way to change it.
    However, if you’re reality based (and focussed on the present), and spent the Doctor Science type day at the polls, as I did, it’s awfully discouraging to come out of there, and find out that, despite the fact that the precinct you were in had admirable voting percentages, most Democrats actually failed to show up.
    I mean, what can redistricting “the right way” accomplish if the people who would vote Democratic stay home? I was asked to be at my polling place all day long, but I took a brief break to vote, in my own nearby precinct, because I didn’t get the memo that I was supposed to have voted absentee. My conscience was bothering me horribly. What does one vote matter? the evil angel on my right shoulder asked. What does “protecting the vote” mean if you don’t vote, the kind angel on my left advised.
    Let’s just imagine that people actually care about what happens to the country enough to vote for Democrats in a mid-term election. As long as we’re imagining redistricting strategies, and other fanciful stuff, let’s imagine that.

  392. bobbyp, thanks for that. I’ve spent a lot of time at LGM lately.
    As I mentioned previously, all of this changing of the law regarding redistricting is so interesting if you’re a theoretical sort of person. And we need people to imagine “what if”, so don’t get me wrong. And surely it will help if we find a way to change it.
    However, if you’re reality based (and focussed on the present), and spent the Doctor Science type day at the polls, as I did, it’s awfully discouraging to come out of there, and find out that, despite the fact that the precinct you were in had admirable voting percentages, most Democrats actually failed to show up.
    I mean, what can redistricting “the right way” accomplish if the people who would vote Democratic stay home? I was asked to be at my polling place all day long, but I took a brief break to vote, in my own nearby precinct, because I didn’t get the memo that I was supposed to have voted absentee. My conscience was bothering me horribly. What does one vote matter? the evil angel on my right shoulder asked. What does “protecting the vote” mean if you don’t vote, the kind angel on my left advised.
    Let’s just imagine that people actually care about what happens to the country enough to vote for Democrats in a mid-term election. As long as we’re imagining redistricting strategies, and other fanciful stuff, let’s imagine that.

  393. bobbyp, thanks for that. I’ve spent a lot of time at LGM lately.
    As I mentioned previously, all of this changing of the law regarding redistricting is so interesting if you’re a theoretical sort of person. And we need people to imagine “what if”, so don’t get me wrong. And surely it will help if we find a way to change it.
    However, if you’re reality based (and focussed on the present), and spent the Doctor Science type day at the polls, as I did, it’s awfully discouraging to come out of there, and find out that, despite the fact that the precinct you were in had admirable voting percentages, most Democrats actually failed to show up.
    I mean, what can redistricting “the right way” accomplish if the people who would vote Democratic stay home? I was asked to be at my polling place all day long, but I took a brief break to vote, in my own nearby precinct, because I didn’t get the memo that I was supposed to have voted absentee. My conscience was bothering me horribly. What does one vote matter? the evil angel on my right shoulder asked. What does “protecting the vote” mean if you don’t vote, the kind angel on my left advised.
    Let’s just imagine that people actually care about what happens to the country enough to vote for Democrats in a mid-term election. As long as we’re imagining redistricting strategies, and other fanciful stuff, let’s imagine that.

  403. Oops, that was supposed to be </i>. I mean, it doesn’t matter since it’s just placeholder text accompanying unseen markup language, but still. I have my pride, dammit.

  404. Oops, that was supposed to be </i>. I mean, it doesn’t matter since it’s just placeholder text accompanying unseen markup language, but still. I have my pride, dammit.

  405. Oops, that was supposed to be </i>. I mean, it doesn’t matter since it’s just placeholder text accompanying unseen markup language, but still. I have my pride, dammit.

  406. Actually, the typo in the law reads as “pony”, when it was intended to read “horse”.
    It would be like you understanding the word “militia” to mean “individual” and acting accordingly.
    It’s a typo, and understood by the legislature in the carrying out of the law to be so, by everyone.
    Changing one word is a editorial clerk’s job, not a matter for the Court.
    Repealing or crippling the law is genocide.
    Killing citizens is what the federal Government did at Waco.
    Glad you’re on board with that, finally.
    Out West where I live, someone rustles your horse, we hunt them down and hang em.
    Now the plains Indians, when their ponies were stolen, would track the rustlers down, roughly adopt their womenfolk, burn down the village, and bury the men, sans testicles, up to their necks for some lengthy dehydration, suntanning, and critter face nibbling.
    Now, you’ll respond that the Legislature can very well change the typo to reflect the understanding.
    Or perhaps legislate a workaround to reflect the intent of the law.
    Given the current non-proportional representation in which sadists are now in the majority, and folks with pre-existing conditions and other unfortunate circumstances via a vis health insurance are in the minority, I don’t see that happening.
    If I’m wrong, and Roberts again disappoints the sadists who bankroll him, or the legislators fix it with the stroke of a pen, THAT would be a pony.
    You’ll then call the pony a pig in a poke and in fact will conjure the word “pig” in the Constitution through some anagram sleight of hand reasoning.
    In any event, I’ve adopted your notion of armed self-defense.
    I see a dying person being murdered by sadists who are stealing the money she uses to purchase the medical care her life depends on, and left to die, I shoot the sadists in their f*cking heads, given that they have chosen to consider the Constitution a mutual suicide pact.
    What do you do? Blather on about word choice.

  407. Actually, the typo in the law reads as “pony”, when it was intended to read “horse”.
    It would be like you understanding the word “militia” to mean “individual” and acting accordingly.
    It’s a typo, and understood by the legislature in the carrying out of the law to be so, by everyone.
    Changing one word is a editorial clerk’s job, not a matter for the Court.
    Repealing or crippling the law is genocide.
    Killing citizens is what the federal Government did at Waco.
    Glad you’re on board with that, finally.
    Out West where I live, someone rustles your horse, we hunt them down and hang em.
    Now the plains Indians, when their ponies were stolen, would track the rustlers down, roughly adopt their womenfolk, burn down the village, and bury the men, sans testicles, up to their necks for some lengthy dehydration, suntanning, and critter face nibbling.
    Now, you’ll respond that the Legislature can very well change the typo to reflect the understanding.
    Or perhaps legislate a workaround to reflect the intent of the law.
    Given the current non-proportional representation in which sadists are now in the majority, and folks with pre-existing conditions and other unfortunate circumstances via a vis health insurance are in the minority, I don’t see that happening.
    If I’m wrong, and Roberts again disappoints the sadists who bankroll him, or the legislators fix it with the stroke of a pen, THAT would be a pony.
    You’ll then call the pony a pig in a poke and in fact will conjure the word “pig” in the Constitution through some anagram sleight of hand reasoning.
    In any event, I’ve adopted your notion of armed self-defense.
    I see a dying person being murdered by sadists who are stealing the money she uses to purchase the medical care her life depends on, and left to die, I shoot the sadists in their f*cking heads, given that they have chosen to consider the Constitution a mutual suicide pact.
    What do you do? Blather on about word choice.

  408. Actually, the typo in the law reads as “pony”, when it was intended to read “horse”.
    It would be like you understanding the word “militia” to mean “individual” and acting accordingly.
    It’s a typo, and understood by the legislature in the carrying out of the law to be so, by everyone.
    Changing one word is a editorial clerk’s job, not a matter for the Court.
    Repealing or crippling the law is genocide.
    Killing citizens is what the federal Government did at Waco.
    Glad you’re on board with that, finally.
    Out West where I live, someone rustles your horse, we hunt them down and hang em.
    Now the plains Indians, when their ponies were stolen, would track the rustlers down, roughly adopt their womenfolk, burn down the village, and bury the men, sans testicles, up to their necks for some lengthy dehydration, suntanning, and critter face nibbling.
    Now, you’ll respond that the Legislature can very well change the typo to reflect the understanding.
    Or perhaps legislate a workaround to reflect the intent of the law.
    Given the current non-proportional representation in which sadists are now in the majority, and folks with pre-existing conditions and other unfortunate circumstances via a vis health insurance are in the minority, I don’t see that happening.
    If I’m wrong, and Roberts again disappoints the sadists who bankroll him, or the legislators fix it with the stroke of a pen, THAT would be a pony.
    You’ll then call the pony a pig in a poke and in fact will conjure the word “pig” in the Constitution through some anagram sleight of hand reasoning.
    In any event, I’ve adopted your notion of armed self-defense.
    I see a dying person being murdered by sadists who are stealing the money she uses to purchase the medical care her life depends on, and left to die, I shoot the sadists in their f*cking heads, given that they have chosen to consider the Constitution a mutual suicide pact.
    What do you do? Blather on about word choice.

  409. You know, I’ve worked 45 years, for the last 49, minus a few years unemployed recently, I had health insurance that paid for most everything. I now am working, and have talked to quite a few people, and actually had to buy insurance from health.gov for Six month. The insurance, health.gov nor my current employer plan, have paid a damn thing in two years. The deductibles are so high, plus what I have/had to pay i wonder why the original R catastrophic ins was not a better idea. In fairness: Does pay for drugs mostly. We should figure how a better way, just saying.
    Its amazing how the word murder gets thrown around. Its crap. Everyone’s insurance now sucks, and somehow thats better.

  410. You know, I’ve worked 45 years, for the last 49, minus a few years unemployed recently, I had health insurance that paid for most everything. I now am working, and have talked to quite a few people, and actually had to buy insurance from health.gov for Six month. The insurance, health.gov nor my current employer plan, have paid a damn thing in two years. The deductibles are so high, plus what I have/had to pay i wonder why the original R catastrophic ins was not a better idea. In fairness: Does pay for drugs mostly. We should figure how a better way, just saying.
    Its amazing how the word murder gets thrown around. Its crap. Everyone’s insurance now sucks, and somehow thats better.

  411. You know, I’ve worked 45 years, for the last 49, minus a few years unemployed recently, I had health insurance that paid for most everything. I now am working, and have talked to quite a few people, and actually had to buy insurance from health.gov for Six month. The insurance, health.gov nor my current employer plan, have paid a damn thing in two years. The deductibles are so high, plus what I have/had to pay i wonder why the original R catastrophic ins was not a better idea. In fairness: Does pay for drugs mostly. We should figure how a better way, just saying.
    Its amazing how the word murder gets thrown around. Its crap. Everyone’s insurance now sucks, and somehow thats better.

  415. Everyone’s insurance now sucks, and somehow thats better.
    Would you even have insurance without Obamacare? You’re an oldster, maybe older than I am, right?
    Good luck to you if they destroy Obamacare.

  416. Everyone’s insurance now sucks, and somehow thats better.
    Would you even have insurance without Obamacare? You’re an oldster, maybe older than I am, right?
    Good luck to you if they destroy Obamacare.

  417. Everyone’s insurance now sucks, and somehow thats better.
    Would you even have insurance without Obamacare? You’re an oldster, maybe older than I am, right?
    Good luck to you if they destroy Obamacare.

  418. Its amazing how the word murder gets thrown around. Its crap. Everyone’s insurance now sucks, and somehow thats better.
    You know what’s amazing? It’s amazing that people argue that we “don’t have enough money for health care for all” in the richest ‘effing country on the planet. You know what’s amazing? People who get all bent out of shape at a public policy trying to bring some sense of rational allocation of our resources to national health care. You know what’s amazing? Those who attack the ACA will defend to the death PUBLIC POLICIES, aye, not mandates from f*cking G*d that result in 17 kinds of national taco and burger franchises at the local strip mall in the suburb to f&cking nowhere and then lecture us about “wasted resources”. You know what’s amazing? How about this: Our commitment to insure that our workers have to compete against the world’s poor when it comes to wages, but coddle bankers. Or this: Our insane level of “national defense” spending.
    But yes, do go on about “how the word murder gets thrown around”, because we have the resources to insure those people don’t die, and we choose not to save their lives.
    That’s murder in my book.
    A. Deliberate. Choice. For. Unnecessary. Death.
    Thanks.

  419. Its amazing how the word murder gets thrown around. Its crap. Everyone’s insurance now sucks, and somehow thats better.
    You know what’s amazing? It’s amazing that people argue that we “don’t have enough money for health care for all” in the richest ‘effing country on the planet. You know what’s amazing? People who get all bent out of shape at a public policy trying to bring some sense of rational allocation of our resources to national health care. You know what’s amazing? Those who attack the ACA will defend to the death PUBLIC POLICIES, aye, not mandates from f*cking G*d that result in 17 kinds of national taco and burger franchises at the local strip mall in the suburb to f&cking nowhere and then lecture us about “wasted resources”. You know what’s amazing? How about this: Our commitment to insure that our workers have to compete against the world’s poor when it comes to wages, but coddle bankers. Or this: Our insane level of “national defense” spending.
    But yes, do go on about “how the word murder gets thrown around”, because we have the resources to insure those people don’t die, and we choose not to save their lives.
    That’s murder in my book.
    A. Deliberate. Choice. For. Unnecessary. Death.
    Thanks.

  420. Its amazing how the word murder gets thrown around. Its crap. Everyone’s insurance now sucks, and somehow thats better.
    You know what’s amazing? It’s amazing that people argue that we “don’t have enough money for health care for all” in the richest ‘effing country on the planet. You know what’s amazing? People who get all bent out of shape at a public policy trying to bring some sense of rational allocation of our resources to national health care. You know what’s amazing? Those who attack the ACA will defend to the death PUBLIC POLICIES, aye, not mandates from f*cking G*d that result in 17 kinds of national taco and burger franchises at the local strip mall in the suburb to f&cking nowhere and then lecture us about “wasted resources”. You know what’s amazing? How about this: Our commitment to insure that our workers have to compete against the world’s poor when it comes to wages, but coddle bankers. Or this: Our insane level of “national defense” spending.
    But yes, do go on about “how the word murder gets thrown around”, because we have the resources to insure those people don’t die, and we choose not to save their lives.
    That’s murder in my book.
    A. Deliberate. Choice. For. Unnecessary. Death.
    Thanks.

  421. If the law says you don’t get a pony, it’s not the judiciary’s job to see to it you get one anyway.
    If the law says that you don’t get a 501c(4) tax exemption unless your activity is “exclusively” educational, cultural, or artistic, what does Rabbi ben Bellmore have to say about the horrible oppression of teabagger groups by the IRS?
    Never mind. We know Brett’s position on that one. It’s no surprise to me that he only takes the Costanza position only when it suits him:

    To explain exactly how absurd is the argument advanced by the plaintiffs in these lawsuits, Chait resorted to illustrating it with the famous Seinfeld episode in which George Costanza insists that the Moops invaded Spain in the 8th Century because that’s what it says on the card.

    Hypocrisy has a well-known right-wing bias.
    –TP

  422. If the law says you don’t get a pony, it’s not the judiciary’s job to see to it you get one anyway.
    If the law says that you don’t get a 501c(4) tax exemption unless your activity is “exclusively” educational, cultural, or artistic, what does Rabbi ben Bellmore have to say about the horrible oppression of teabagger groups by the IRS?
    Never mind. We know Brett’s position on that one. It’s no surprise to me that he only takes the Costanza position only when it suits him:

    To explain exactly how absurd is the argument advanced by the plaintiffs in these lawsuits, Chait resorted to illustrating it with the famous Seinfeld episode in which George Costanza insists that the Moops invaded Spain in the 8th Century because that’s what it says on the card.

    Hypocrisy has a well-known right-wing bias.
    –TP

  423. If the law says you don’t get a pony, it’s not the judiciary’s job to see to it you get one anyway.
    If the law says that you don’t get a 501c(4) tax exemption unless your activity is “exclusively” educational, cultural, or artistic, what does Rabbi ben Bellmore have to say about the horrible oppression of teabagger groups by the IRS?
    Never mind. We know Brett’s position on that one. It’s no surprise to me that he only takes the Costanza position only when it suits him:

    To explain exactly how absurd is the argument advanced by the plaintiffs in these lawsuits, Chait resorted to illustrating it with the famous Seinfeld episode in which George Costanza insists that the Moops invaded Spain in the 8th Century because that’s what it says on the card.

    Hypocrisy has a well-known right-wing bias.
    –TP

  424. “Everyone’s insurance now sucks,”
    Agreed.
    Feature, not a bug. That Obamacare adopted the incentives and disincentives recommended by conservative think tanks seems to give no one, especially conservatives, any comfort.
    Although, I have a relative whose employer-sponsered health insurance, for which she pays a considerable percentage of the overall premium, has paid out close to a million dollars over the past year for her medical troubles.
    She’s damned lucky to have Obamacare to fall back on, despite its drawbacks.
    My mother, with her advanced dementia, has Medicare, with supplemental, thank Adam Smith.
    I pay the full premium for my insurance (it’s complicated; divorce settlement in which I stay in the group plan but I pay the employer’s part of the premium as well, a little like COBRA but without the time limit), and hope I can hold out financially until Medicare.
    It’s the only time in my life I’ve wished I was few years older.
    In the meantime, my tumors, my dementia, and my impending heart attacks and car crashes (I know it’s all lurking) are held at bay — disincentivized from appearing — by the increasing deductibles and copays my insurance company has enacted (though they are less than most plans), just like the think tanks and economists have preached.
    You wanna see a tumor shrink on its own — just tell it what the upfront deductible is and the laws of economics send it into full remission, why, because tumors are rational economic actors, that’s why.
    On the other hand, sometimes I think, in rueful jest, that a corking-good expensive disease requiring numerous expensive specialists and procedures, might be just the ticket, so I get full value for the premiums I pay.
    Isn’t medical care just like any other commodity, say, shoes, wherein it’s considered a waste of precious resources and inventory to buy 2000 pairs of shoes you don’t use, like Imelda Marcos’ habits?
    In medical care, there is a possibility you could wake up tomorrow having grown 2000 pairs of feet, which must be shod.
    I have term life insurance too (steady annual premiums) and as I get older I think, well, maybe croaking by my own hand would be a rational economic choice so that my son could use the money when he needs it, like now.
    But noooooo, being dead by one’s own choice isn’t permitted; you have to die by surprise, unexpectedly, as they put it, by some painful means probably, before your beneficiaries can roll around in the dough.
    I suppose I could go off the grid and cancel all of the insurances and not give a sh*t, and pay out some of the money to my son that I otherwise waste on premiums for products I don’t use.
    But, I’m just not up to the anxiety of bargaining with hospital admissions twits for the secret price levels of various emergency procedures out of my limited resources while I’m lying on a gurney bleeding from orifices.
    There is a better way.
    Other industrialized countries, in their exceptionalism, have figured it out to varying degrees and with better overall health results for their populations.
    Obamacare, as much as I support it, was merely a bolt on to our byzantine Rube Goldberg private/public insurance contraption.

  425. “Everyone’s insurance now sucks,”
    Agreed.
    Feature, not a bug. That Obamacare adopted the incentives and disincentives recommended by conservative think tanks seems to give no one, especially conservatives, any comfort.
    Although, I have a relative whose employer-sponsered health insurance, for which she pays a considerable percentage of the overall premium, has paid out close to a million dollars over the past year for her medical troubles.
    She’s damned lucky to have Obamacare to fall back on, despite its drawbacks.
    My mother, with her advanced dementia, has Medicare, with supplemental, thank Adam Smith.
    I pay the full premium for my insurance (it’s complicated; divorce settlement in which I stay in the group plan but I pay the employer’s part of the premium as well, a little like COBRA but without the time limit), and hope I can hold out financially until Medicare.
    It’s the only time in my life I’ve wished I was few years older.
    In the meantime, my tumors, my dementia, and my impending heart attacks and car crashes (I know it’s all lurking) are held at bay — disincentivized from appearing — by the increasing deductibles and copays my insurance company has enacted (though they are less than most plans), just like the think tanks and economists have preached.
    You wanna see a tumor shrink on its own — just tell it what the upfront deductible is and the laws of economics send it into full remission, why, because tumors are rational economic actors, that’s why.
    On the other hand, sometimes I think, in rueful jest, that a corking-good expensive disease requiring numerous expensive specialists and procedures, might be just the ticket, so I get full value for the premiums I pay.
    Isn’t medical care just like any other commodity, say, shoes, wherein it’s considered a waste of precious resources and inventory to buy 2000 pairs of shoes you don’t use, like Imelda Marcos’ habits?
    In medical care, there is a possibility you could wake up tomorrow having grown 2000 pairs of feet, which must be shod.
    I have term life insurance too (steady annual premiums) and as I get older I think, well, maybe croaking by my own hand would be a rational economic choice so that my son could use the money when he needs it, like now.
    But noooooo, being dead by one’s own choice isn’t permitted; you have to die by surprise, unexpectedly, as they put it, by some painful means probably, before your beneficiaries can roll around in the dough.
    I suppose I could go off the grid and cancel all of the insurances and not give a sh*t, and pay out some of the money to my son that I otherwise waste on premiums for products I don’t use.
    But, I’m just not up to the anxiety of bargaining with hospital admissions twits for the secret price levels of various emergency procedures out of my limited resources while I’m lying on a gurney bleeding from orifices.
    There is a better way.
    Other industrialized countries, in their exceptionalism, have figured it out to varying degrees and with better overall health results for their populations.
    Obamacare, as much as I support it, was merely a bolt on to our byzantine Rube Goldberg private/public insurance contraption.

  426. “Everyone’s insurance now sucks,”
    Agreed.
    Feature, not a bug. That Obamacare adopted the incentives and disincentives recommended by conservative think tanks seems to give no one, especially conservatives, any comfort.
    Although, I have a relative whose employer-sponsered health insurance, for which she pays a considerable percentage of the overall premium, has paid out close to a million dollars over the past year for her medical troubles.
    She’s damned lucky to have Obamacare to fall back on, despite its drawbacks.
    My mother, with her advanced dementia, has Medicare, with supplemental, thank Adam Smith.
    I pay the full premium for my insurance (it’s complicated; divorce settlement in which I stay in the group plan but I pay the employer’s part of the premium as well, a little like COBRA but without the time limit), and hope I can hold out financially until Medicare.
    It’s the only time in my life I’ve wished I was few years older.
    In the meantime, my tumors, my dementia, and my impending heart attacks and car crashes (I know it’s all lurking) are held at bay — disincentivized from appearing — by the increasing deductibles and copays my insurance company has enacted (though they are less than most plans), just like the think tanks and economists have preached.
    You wanna see a tumor shrink on its own — just tell it what the upfront deductible is and the laws of economics send it into full remission, why, because tumors are rational economic actors, that’s why.
    On the other hand, sometimes I think, in rueful jest, that a corking-good expensive disease requiring numerous expensive specialists and procedures, might be just the ticket, so I get full value for the premiums I pay.
    Isn’t medical care just like any other commodity, say, shoes, wherein it’s considered a waste of precious resources and inventory to buy 2000 pairs of shoes you don’t use, like Imelda Marcos’ habits?
    In medical care, there is a possibility you could wake up tomorrow having grown 2000 pairs of feet, which must be shod.
    I have term life insurance too (steady annual premiums) and as I get older I think, well, maybe croaking by my own hand would be a rational economic choice so that my son could use the money when he needs it, like now.
    But noooooo, being dead by one’s own choice isn’t permitted; you have to die by surprise, unexpectedly, as they put it, by some painful means probably, before your beneficiaries can roll around in the dough.
    I suppose I could go off the grid and cancel all of the insurances and not give a sh*t, and pay out some of the money to my son that I otherwise waste on premiums for products I don’t use.
    But, I’m just not up to the anxiety of bargaining with hospital admissions twits for the secret price levels of various emergency procedures out of my limited resources while I’m lying on a gurney bleeding from orifices.
    There is a better way.
    Other industrialized countries, in their exceptionalism, have figured it out to varying degrees and with better overall health results for their populations.
    Obamacare, as much as I support it, was merely a bolt on to our byzantine Rube Goldberg private/public insurance contraption.

  427. So, basically, we don’t give a crap about rural issues the cities all that matters? Oh, wait, thats Massachusetts today.
    For cripes sake.
    The topic was gerrymandering. If you divide up districts according to a strict algorithm – pick you favorite – you don’t get gerrymandering.
    Unless the algorithm is “sort by voting record”.
    In general, densely populated areas get more representation than rural areas because more people are in them.
    On the flip side, people in less populated areas generally don’t have to pay to park.
    We all make our choices.
    I can tell you I know more folks in eastern MA who’d like to live in western MA than the reverse. So it can’t be all bad out there.
    We need a LOT more subsidiarity if we’re going to live together in peace.
    That, or we could all decide to not be @ssholes.
    Either one would probably work.
    All of that said, I have no problem in principle with devolving stuff to local governments.
    It’s the “in principle” part that’s the catch. It’s always the details that bite you where you don’t wanna be bit.

  428. So, basically, we don’t give a crap about rural issues the cities all that matters? Oh, wait, thats Massachusetts today.
    For cripes sake.
    The topic was gerrymandering. If you divide up districts according to a strict algorithm – pick you favorite – you don’t get gerrymandering.
    Unless the algorithm is “sort by voting record”.
    In general, densely populated areas get more representation than rural areas because more people are in them.
    On the flip side, people in less populated areas generally don’t have to pay to park.
    We all make our choices.
    I can tell you I know more folks in eastern MA who’d like to live in western MA than the reverse. So it can’t be all bad out there.
    We need a LOT more subsidiarity if we’re going to live together in peace.
    That, or we could all decide to not be @ssholes.
    Either one would probably work.
    All of that said, I have no problem in principle with devolving stuff to local governments.
    It’s the “in principle” part that’s the catch. It’s always the details that bite you where you don’t wanna be bit.

  429. So, basically, we don’t give a crap about rural issues the cities all that matters? Oh, wait, thats Massachusetts today.
    For cripes sake.
    The topic was gerrymandering. If you divide up districts according to a strict algorithm – pick you favorite – you don’t get gerrymandering.
    Unless the algorithm is “sort by voting record”.
    In general, densely populated areas get more representation than rural areas because more people are in them.
    On the flip side, people in less populated areas generally don’t have to pay to park.
    We all make our choices.
    I can tell you I know more folks in eastern MA who’d like to live in western MA than the reverse. So it can’t be all bad out there.
    We need a LOT more subsidiarity if we’re going to live together in peace.
    That, or we could all decide to not be @ssholes.
    Either one would probably work.
    All of that said, I have no problem in principle with devolving stuff to local governments.
    It’s the “in principle” part that’s the catch. It’s always the details that bite you where you don’t wanna be bit.

  430. By the way, Marty, I’m gratified that Obamacare was made available to you when you needed an alternative.
    Brett’s going to shoot that pony out from under you.
    When he does, join my militia.

  431. By the way, Marty, I’m gratified that Obamacare was made available to you when you needed an alternative.
    Brett’s going to shoot that pony out from under you.
    When he does, join my militia.

  432. By the way, Marty, I’m gratified that Obamacare was made available to you when you needed an alternative.
    Brett’s going to shoot that pony out from under you.
    When he does, join my militia.

  433. Moops. Heh.
    I recall the bubble boy throttled Constanza, not so much because he was wrong, but because of the smug look on his face while being wrong on purpose, because they were playing a game — a sport — and all that mattered was winning.
    See how I tied the thread together there?
    The bubble boy was a bit of an annoying twit, but really, puncturing his bubble was a little much.
    What if he’d had Ebola?

  434. Moops. Heh.
    I recall the bubble boy throttled Constanza, not so much because he was wrong, but because of the smug look on his face while being wrong on purpose, because they were playing a game — a sport — and all that mattered was winning.
    See how I tied the thread together there?
    The bubble boy was a bit of an annoying twit, but really, puncturing his bubble was a little much.
    What if he’d had Ebola?

  435. Moops. Heh.
    I recall the bubble boy throttled Constanza, not so much because he was wrong, but because of the smug look on his face while being wrong on purpose, because they were playing a game — a sport — and all that mattered was winning.
    See how I tied the thread together there?
    The bubble boy was a bit of an annoying twit, but really, puncturing his bubble was a little much.
    What if he’d had Ebola?

  442. “when you needed an alternative.”
    You mean when I was required by law to buy insurance that paid effing nothing?

  443. “when you needed an alternative.”
    You mean when I was required by law to buy insurance that paid effing nothing?

  444. “when you needed an alternative.”
    You mean when I was required by law to buy insurance that paid effing nothing?

  445. Yeah, I know it’s a difficult concept to understand.
    You could have foregone Obamacare and paid the tax disincentive to remain uninsured and probably spent less money for nothing, except for the extra cash you would have paid anyway for whatever care you “utilized”.
    You could have foregone Obamacare and purchased health insurance in the private market with much higher premiums and, hey, a bonus, the assurance that they couldn’t deny you coverage because of preexisting sedition and not paid the tax disincentive for remaining uninsured.
    However, if you had foregone health insurance altogether and had a catastrophic medical event without Obamacare coverage, we, the people, would have had roughly two choices, depending on the small print of which state you reside in:
    Socializing the cost of your medical care by letting the hospital and providers absorb the full cost of your care, but skimping wherever they can, and further socialize (see, we’re getting into dangerous territory here) your medical care by raising insurance rates and medical costs for the rest of us.
    Meanwhile, you would be connected to tubes and keeping the curtains closed and the phone off the hook while the hospitals and providers contract out the “payment procedure” to billing agencies, whose job it is to bankrupt you and thus limit the previous mentioned socialization of your costs for the rest of us, although I get the feeling the hospitals and providers would be playing both sides of that street.
    Or, we could allow you to spend down your assets to $2000 bucks and make Medicaid available to you, which is better than nothing.
    The great thing about those choices, if they occurred during an election season, is that you would gain notoriety in Republican attack ads under under dark talk of the 47% of the population who have chosen to be parasites and live off the rest of us.
    But, yes, deductibles are too high.
    For a reason.
    So you would use less healthcare.
    I guess it didn’t work.

  446. Yeah, I know it’s a difficult concept to understand.
    You could have foregone Obamacare and paid the tax disincentive to remain uninsured and probably spent less money for nothing, except for the extra cash you would have paid anyway for whatever care you “utilized”.
    You could have foregone Obamacare and purchased health insurance in the private market with much higher premiums and, hey, a bonus, the assurance that they couldn’t deny you coverage because of preexisting sedition and not paid the tax disincentive for remaining uninsured.
    However, if you had foregone health insurance altogether and had a catastrophic medical event without Obamacare coverage, we, the people, would have had roughly two choices, depending on the small print of which state you reside in:
    Socializing the cost of your medical care by letting the hospital and providers absorb the full cost of your care, but skimping wherever they can, and further socialize (see, we’re getting into dangerous territory here) your medical care by raising insurance rates and medical costs for the rest of us.
    Meanwhile, you would be connected to tubes and keeping the curtains closed and the phone off the hook while the hospitals and providers contract out the “payment procedure” to billing agencies, whose job it is to bankrupt you and thus limit the previous mentioned socialization of your costs for the rest of us, although I get the feeling the hospitals and providers would be playing both sides of that street.
    Or, we could allow you to spend down your assets to $2000 bucks and make Medicaid available to you, which is better than nothing.
    The great thing about those choices, if they occurred during an election season, is that you would gain notoriety in Republican attack ads under under dark talk of the 47% of the population who have chosen to be parasites and live off the rest of us.
    But, yes, deductibles are too high.
    For a reason.
    So you would use less healthcare.
    I guess it didn’t work.

  447. Yeah, I know it’s a difficult concept to understand.
    You could have foregone Obamacare and paid the tax disincentive to remain uninsured and probably spent less money for nothing, except for the extra cash you would have paid anyway for whatever care you “utilized”.
    You could have foregone Obamacare and purchased health insurance in the private market with much higher premiums and, hey, a bonus, the assurance that they couldn’t deny you coverage because of preexisting sedition and not paid the tax disincentive for remaining uninsured.
    However, if you had foregone health insurance altogether and had a catastrophic medical event without Obamacare coverage, we, the people, would have had roughly two choices, depending on the small print of which state you reside in:
    Socializing the cost of your medical care by letting the hospital and providers absorb the full cost of your care, but skimping wherever they can, and further socialize (see, we’re getting into dangerous territory here) your medical care by raising insurance rates and medical costs for the rest of us.
    Meanwhile, you would be connected to tubes and keeping the curtains closed and the phone off the hook while the hospitals and providers contract out the “payment procedure” to billing agencies, whose job it is to bankrupt you and thus limit the previous mentioned socialization of your costs for the rest of us, although I get the feeling the hospitals and providers would be playing both sides of that street.
    Or, we could allow you to spend down your assets to $2000 bucks and make Medicaid available to you, which is better than nothing.
    The great thing about those choices, if they occurred during an election season, is that you would gain notoriety in Republican attack ads under under dark talk of the 47% of the population who have chosen to be parasites and live off the rest of us.
    But, yes, deductibles are too high.
    For a reason.
    So you would use less healthcare.
    I guess it didn’t work.

  448. Gotta say, I’m a little steamed about being forced … forced, I say, to buy car insurance and then not having enough wrecks to make it worthwhile.

  449. Gotta say, I’m a little steamed about being forced … forced, I say, to buy car insurance and then not having enough wrecks to make it worthwhile.

  450. Gotta say, I’m a little steamed about being forced … forced, I say, to buy car insurance and then not having enough wrecks to make it worthwhile.

  454. “We need a LOT more subsidiarity if we’re going to live together in peace.
    That, or we could all decide to not be @ssholes.
    Either one would probably work.”
    A lot more subsidiarity IS not being @ssholes. “We live over here in the city, you live over there in the country, our lives are different in almost every way, but we outnumber you a bit, so we’re going to make you live according to our rules.” is a pretty good description of being an @sshole.
    We’re too heterogeneous a nation to be ruled top down like this. We’d likely be better off broken up into a lot of smaller nations, and then just have a mutual defense and free trade treaty among them. Which, not incidentally, is a fair description of how federalism is supposed to operate…
    Even that wouldn’t solve the problem of urban/rural conflicts. Kind of difficult to split the nation into urban and rural countries, the map would look like swiss cheese. But a lot more modesty about what needs to be done by government would help a lot.
    Homogeneous nations can get away with having really active government, because people pretty much will agree on what it should do. Nations that vary dramatically from place to place, in lifestyle and culture? Not so much. They come with the fault lines pre-installed, best not to stress them that way.

  455. “We need a LOT more subsidiarity if we’re going to live together in peace.
    That, or we could all decide to not be @ssholes.
    Either one would probably work.”
    A lot more subsidiarity IS not being @ssholes. “We live over here in the city, you live over there in the country, our lives are different in almost every way, but we outnumber you a bit, so we’re going to make you live according to our rules.” is a pretty good description of being an @sshole.
    We’re too heterogeneous a nation to be ruled top down like this. We’d likely be better off broken up into a lot of smaller nations, and then just have a mutual defense and free trade treaty among them. Which, not incidentally, is a fair description of how federalism is supposed to operate…
    Even that wouldn’t solve the problem of urban/rural conflicts. Kind of difficult to split the nation into urban and rural countries, the map would look like swiss cheese. But a lot more modesty about what needs to be done by government would help a lot.
    Homogeneous nations can get away with having really active government, because people pretty much will agree on what it should do. Nations that vary dramatically from place to place, in lifestyle and culture? Not so much. They come with the fault lines pre-installed, best not to stress them that way.

  456. “We need a LOT more subsidiarity if we’re going to live together in peace.
    That, or we could all decide to not be @ssholes.
    Either one would probably work.”
    A lot more subsidiarity IS not being @ssholes. “We live over here in the city, you live over there in the country, our lives are different in almost every way, but we outnumber you a bit, so we’re going to make you live according to our rules.” is a pretty good description of being an @sshole.
    We’re too heterogeneous a nation to be ruled top down like this. We’d likely be better off broken up into a lot of smaller nations, and then just have a mutual defense and free trade treaty among them. Which, not incidentally, is a fair description of how federalism is supposed to operate…
    Even that wouldn’t solve the problem of urban/rural conflicts. Kind of difficult to split the nation into urban and rural countries, the map would look like swiss cheese. But a lot more modesty about what needs to be done by government would help a lot.
    Homogeneous nations can get away with having really active government, because people pretty much will agree on what it should do. Nations that vary dramatically from place to place, in lifestyle and culture? Not so much. They come with the fault lines pre-installed, best not to stress them that way.

  457. Count, to be clear, I am happy to have insurance, I just don’t want crappy insurance. I am pretty sick of articles, graphs and politicians talking about how much less insurance is going up, when the insurance isn’t the same. Now your insurance has a 2000-5000 dollar deductible per person some 10000 but its only going up 5% this year, and the reality is more because any costly procedure is only covered 75%, some 50%. Up to a max out of pocket that essentially can’t be reached unless you have an extended hospital stay.
    Good part, I never pay list because the health care business only charges that to uninsured, who can’t pay it anyway.
    So we’ve taken away real insurance so some more people could say they have crappy insurance. Which a huge number of simply sign up and then don’t ay the second monthly premium, because they use it and find out it doesn’t cover anything. So they get sick and we then decide what to do with them anyway.

  458. Count, to be clear, I am happy to have insurance, I just don’t want crappy insurance. I am pretty sick of articles, graphs and politicians talking about how much less insurance is going up, when the insurance isn’t the same. Now your insurance has a 2000-5000 dollar deductible per person some 10000 but its only going up 5% this year, and the reality is more because any costly procedure is only covered 75%, some 50%. Up to a max out of pocket that essentially can’t be reached unless you have an extended hospital stay.
    Good part, I never pay list because the health care business only charges that to uninsured, who can’t pay it anyway.
    So we’ve taken away real insurance so some more people could say they have crappy insurance. Which a huge number of simply sign up and then don’t ay the second monthly premium, because they use it and find out it doesn’t cover anything. So they get sick and we then decide what to do with them anyway.

  459. Count, to be clear, I am happy to have insurance, I just don’t want crappy insurance. I am pretty sick of articles, graphs and politicians talking about how much less insurance is going up, when the insurance isn’t the same. Now your insurance has a 2000-5000 dollar deductible per person some 10000 but its only going up 5% this year, and the reality is more because any costly procedure is only covered 75%, some 50%. Up to a max out of pocket that essentially can’t be reached unless you have an extended hospital stay.
    Good part, I never pay list because the health care business only charges that to uninsured, who can’t pay it anyway.
    So we’ve taken away real insurance so some more people could say they have crappy insurance. Which a huge number of simply sign up and then don’t ay the second monthly premium, because they use it and find out it doesn’t cover anything. So they get sick and we then decide what to do with them anyway.

  460. A lot more subsidiarity IS not being @ssholes.
    Actually, it’s not.
    Also, for the record, of anyone on “my side” of things, I’m likely the most open to increasing the level of subsidiarity (which is apparently today’s buzzword for “federalism”).
    I agree that the size and diversity of the country makes it very hard to govern effectively from the top.
    I, personally, would be freaking delighted to not have to negotiate public policy with folks from Alaska, or Arkansas, or Alabama, or Utah.
    Nothing wrong with any of those places, I’m just hard pressed to see what I have in common with them when it comes to an understanding of what public life is supposed to be.
    So I have no fundamental disagreement with your point.
    I simply note that, historically, subsidiarity in practice has not always been so great. Hence my comment about details.
    All of that said, the virtue of subsidiarity – the thing that is good about it – is that it (ideally) yields public policy that is a closer fit to what folks want.
    That doesn’t constitute “not being an @sshole”, it removes the need to not be an @sshole.
    Everybody’s happy when they get their way.
    Not being an @sshole is when you refrain from threatening to shoot other people if things don’t go your way.
    Last but not least, in this country folks who live in rural areas generally receive representation in greater proportion than their numbers would call for. That’s by intent, and design.
    I understand that they don’t always get their way. Neither do the rest of us.

  461. A lot more subsidiarity IS not being @ssholes.
    Actually, it’s not.
    Also, for the record, of anyone on “my side” of things, I’m likely the most open to increasing the level of subsidiarity (which is apparently today’s buzzword for “federalism”).
    I agree that the size and diversity of the country makes it very hard to govern effectively from the top.
    I, personally, would be freaking delighted to not have to negotiate public policy with folks from Alaska, or Arkansas, or Alabama, or Utah.
    Nothing wrong with any of those places, I’m just hard pressed to see what I have in common with them when it comes to an understanding of what public life is supposed to be.
    So I have no fundamental disagreement with your point.
    I simply note that, historically, subsidiarity in practice has not always been so great. Hence my comment about details.
    All of that said, the virtue of subsidiarity – the thing that is good about it – is that it (ideally) yields public policy that is a closer fit to what folks want.
    That doesn’t constitute “not being an @sshole”, it removes the need to not be an @sshole.
    Everybody’s happy when they get their way.
    Not being an @sshole is when you refrain from threatening to shoot other people if things don’t go your way.
    Last but not least, in this country folks who live in rural areas generally receive representation in greater proportion than their numbers would call for. That’s by intent, and design.
    I understand that they don’t always get their way. Neither do the rest of us.

  462. A lot more subsidiarity IS not being @ssholes.
    Actually, it’s not.
    Also, for the record, of anyone on “my side” of things, I’m likely the most open to increasing the level of subsidiarity (which is apparently today’s buzzword for “federalism”).
    I agree that the size and diversity of the country makes it very hard to govern effectively from the top.
    I, personally, would be freaking delighted to not have to negotiate public policy with folks from Alaska, or Arkansas, or Alabama, or Utah.
    Nothing wrong with any of those places, I’m just hard pressed to see what I have in common with them when it comes to an understanding of what public life is supposed to be.
    So I have no fundamental disagreement with your point.
    I simply note that, historically, subsidiarity in practice has not always been so great. Hence my comment about details.
    All of that said, the virtue of subsidiarity – the thing that is good about it – is that it (ideally) yields public policy that is a closer fit to what folks want.
    That doesn’t constitute “not being an @sshole”, it removes the need to not be an @sshole.
    Everybody’s happy when they get their way.
    Not being an @sshole is when you refrain from threatening to shoot other people if things don’t go your way.
    Last but not least, in this country folks who live in rural areas generally receive representation in greater proportion than their numbers would call for. That’s by intent, and design.
    I understand that they don’t always get their way. Neither do the rest of us.

  463. Homogeneous nations can get away with having really active government, because people pretty much will agree on what it should do.
    [eyeroll] I wonder what are these homogeneous nations are. Peer into any nation, and you are going to find variety. It may look, because of an absence of vision and an inability to see past one’s own preconceptions, like a smooth homogenous pudding, but a unblinkered eye will see the differences, the variety that is there. This seems more like a ‘gee, if you aren’t homogeneous, that gives an excuse to act like an @sshole’. There is no such nation as a homogenous nation, so therefore either everyone has the right to act like an @sshole or it might be wiser to not try to blame it on differences and stop doing it.

  464. Homogeneous nations can get away with having really active government, because people pretty much will agree on what it should do.
    [eyeroll] I wonder what are these homogeneous nations are. Peer into any nation, and you are going to find variety. It may look, because of an absence of vision and an inability to see past one’s own preconceptions, like a smooth homogenous pudding, but a unblinkered eye will see the differences, the variety that is there. This seems more like a ‘gee, if you aren’t homogeneous, that gives an excuse to act like an @sshole’. There is no such nation as a homogenous nation, so therefore either everyone has the right to act like an @sshole or it might be wiser to not try to blame it on differences and stop doing it.

  465. Homogeneous nations can get away with having really active government, because people pretty much will agree on what it should do.
    [eyeroll] I wonder what are these homogeneous nations are. Peer into any nation, and you are going to find variety. It may look, because of an absence of vision and an inability to see past one’s own preconceptions, like a smooth homogenous pudding, but a unblinkered eye will see the differences, the variety that is there. This seems more like a ‘gee, if you aren’t homogeneous, that gives an excuse to act like an @sshole’. There is no such nation as a homogenous nation, so therefore either everyone has the right to act like an @sshole or it might be wiser to not try to blame it on differences and stop doing it.

  466. Eyeroll back at you. Maybe you mean to claim that all nations are uniformly heterogeneous? That the US doesn’t have more regional variation than, say, Sweden?

  467. Eyeroll back at you. Maybe you mean to claim that all nations are uniformly heterogeneous? That the US doesn’t have more regional variation than, say, Sweden?

  468. Eyeroll back at you. Maybe you mean to claim that all nations are uniformly heterogeneous? That the US doesn’t have more regional variation than, say, Sweden?

  469. Not so fast, Brett:
    The 25 provinces (landskap) of Sweden, which early in their histories had poor intercommunication, each have a distinct culture. The provinces long ago lost their importance as administrative and political regions, but are still seen as cultural ones, and the population of Sweden identifies with them. Each province has a specific history, each with its own robust nature. Some of them constituted separated parts of Sweden with their own laws. Other regions have been independent, or a part of another country, such as (Denmark or Norway), etc. They have different indigenous dialects of North Germanic, and some have ethnic minorities.
    And don’t overlook the genetic differences that wingers are drawn to like flies to fresh excrement:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110211074848.htm

  470. Not so fast, Brett:
    The 25 provinces (landskap) of Sweden, which early in their histories had poor intercommunication, each have a distinct culture. The provinces long ago lost their importance as administrative and political regions, but are still seen as cultural ones, and the population of Sweden identifies with them. Each province has a specific history, each with its own robust nature. Some of them constituted separated parts of Sweden with their own laws. Other regions have been independent, or a part of another country, such as (Denmark or Norway), etc. They have different indigenous dialects of North Germanic, and some have ethnic minorities.
    And don’t overlook the genetic differences that wingers are drawn to like flies to fresh excrement:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110211074848.htm

  471. Not so fast, Brett:
    The 25 provinces (landskap) of Sweden, which early in their histories had poor intercommunication, each have a distinct culture. The provinces long ago lost their importance as administrative and political regions, but are still seen as cultural ones, and the population of Sweden identifies with them. Each province has a specific history, each with its own robust nature. Some of them constituted separated parts of Sweden with their own laws. Other regions have been independent, or a part of another country, such as (Denmark or Norway), etc. They have different indigenous dialects of North Germanic, and some have ethnic minorities.
    And don’t overlook the genetic differences that wingers are drawn to like flies to fresh excrement:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110211074848.htm

  475. The US has more ethnic variation than Sweden.
    The notion that rural and urban life are “completely different in almost every way” is arrant nonsense. Life is much more than guns, gods, and gays.
    The notion that “we outnumber you a bit, so we’re going to make you live according to our rules” is characteristic of the Left and not the Right is such a crock that it’s hardly worth discussing.
    –TP

  476. The US has more ethnic variation than Sweden.
    The notion that rural and urban life are “completely different in almost every way” is arrant nonsense. Life is much more than guns, gods, and gays.
    The notion that “we outnumber you a bit, so we’re going to make you live according to our rules” is characteristic of the Left and not the Right is such a crock that it’s hardly worth discussing.
    –TP

  477. The US has more ethnic variation than Sweden.
    The notion that rural and urban life are “completely different in almost every way” is arrant nonsense. Life is much more than guns, gods, and gays.
    The notion that “we outnumber you a bit, so we’re going to make you live according to our rules” is characteristic of the Left and not the Right is such a crock that it’s hardly worth discussing.
    –TP

  478. If I were asserting it was uniquely characteristic of the left, rather than statists, you’d have a point. Plenty of statists in the GOP, too.
    The main distinction I see, is that the Democratic party is “the” party of government, while the GOP is merely “a” party of government. Its identity is not so tied up in promoting ever more government as the Democratic party’s.

  479. If I were asserting it was uniquely characteristic of the left, rather than statists, you’d have a point. Plenty of statists in the GOP, too.
    The main distinction I see, is that the Democratic party is “the” party of government, while the GOP is merely “a” party of government. Its identity is not so tied up in promoting ever more government as the Democratic party’s.

  480. If I were asserting it was uniquely characteristic of the left, rather than statists, you’d have a point. Plenty of statists in the GOP, too.
    The main distinction I see, is that the Democratic party is “the” party of government, while the GOP is merely “a” party of government. Its identity is not so tied up in promoting ever more government as the Democratic party’s.

  481. Count: “.. they couldn’t deny you coverage because of preexisting sedition”
    I just wanted to highlight this, since it is a thing of beauty.

  482. Count: “.. they couldn’t deny you coverage because of preexisting sedition”
    I just wanted to highlight this, since it is a thing of beauty.

  483. Count: “.. they couldn’t deny you coverage because of preexisting sedition”
    I just wanted to highlight this, since it is a thing of beauty.

  484. The main distinction I see, is that the Democratic party is “the” party of government, while the GOP is merely “a” party of government.
    A facile assertion wrapped in a category error.

  485. The main distinction I see, is that the Democratic party is “the” party of government, while the GOP is merely “a” party of government.
    A facile assertion wrapped in a category error.

  486. The main distinction I see, is that the Democratic party is “the” party of government, while the GOP is merely “a” party of government.
    A facile assertion wrapped in a category error.

  487. russell:
    Yes, but the mix of urban vs rural in each district would be roughly comparable.
    That’s basically what I was getting at by a “reasonably even” distribution. No cramming all of the urbans into one district, and the rurals into another.
    Yeah, ok, I see that definition. I was thinking in the sense that a 20% rural state would have 20% rural districts, not that each district would be 20% rural.
    In any case, just another ill-advised attempt at humor on my part.
    Yeah, sorry, I’m not trying to hammer you on an off the cuff comment.
    But I think it demonstrates a real strength of at large PR. A minority population (who feel their needs diverge from the majority) will have representation proportional with their size.
    I think it’s too easy in the current system to draw districts such that a minority is distributed across districts, and has no voice in the legislative body.
    In the above example, it was 20% rural. But I think the argument hold equally well for racial minorities (some discussion of that in the Center for Politics link), religious minorities, or just political minorities (as Brett notes).
    I mean, ideally, there should be no split in the interests of urban/rural, different races, different religions, etc. But practically there are, and I think its important those views get represented in congress.
    Last but not least, in this country folks who live in rural areas generally receive representation in greater proportion than their numbers would call for. That’s by intent, and design.
    My understanding is this correct, and basically fallout from having geographically drawn districts. An example is here:
    http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-us-congress-census-map-htmlstory.html
    I’ve never understood why, however. Couldn’t the rural districts be drawn a little smaller, and the urban districts a little larger?
    Regardless, another problem that would be fixed by PR, dramatic increase in the number of seats, or both.

  488. russell:
    Yes, but the mix of urban vs rural in each district would be roughly comparable.
    That’s basically what I was getting at by a “reasonably even” distribution. No cramming all of the urbans into one district, and the rurals into another.
    Yeah, ok, I see that definition. I was thinking in the sense that a 20% rural state would have 20% rural districts, not that each district would be 20% rural.
    In any case, just another ill-advised attempt at humor on my part.
    Yeah, sorry, I’m not trying to hammer you on an off the cuff comment.
    But I think it demonstrates a real strength of at large PR. A minority population (who feel their needs diverge from the majority) will have representation proportional with their size.
    I think it’s too easy in the current system to draw districts such that a minority is distributed across districts, and has no voice in the legislative body.
    In the above example, it was 20% rural. But I think the argument hold equally well for racial minorities (some discussion of that in the Center for Politics link), religious minorities, or just political minorities (as Brett notes).
    I mean, ideally, there should be no split in the interests of urban/rural, different races, different religions, etc. But practically there are, and I think its important those views get represented in congress.
    Last but not least, in this country folks who live in rural areas generally receive representation in greater proportion than their numbers would call for. That’s by intent, and design.
    My understanding is this correct, and basically fallout from having geographically drawn districts. An example is here:
    http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-us-congress-census-map-htmlstory.html
    I’ve never understood why, however. Couldn’t the rural districts be drawn a little smaller, and the urban districts a little larger?
    Regardless, another problem that would be fixed by PR, dramatic increase in the number of seats, or both.

  489. russell:
    Yes, but the mix of urban vs rural in each district would be roughly comparable.
    That’s basically what I was getting at by a “reasonably even” distribution. No cramming all of the urbans into one district, and the rurals into another.
    Yeah, ok, I see that definition. I was thinking in the sense that a 20% rural state would have 20% rural districts, not that each district would be 20% rural.
    In any case, just another ill-advised attempt at humor on my part.
    Yeah, sorry, I’m not trying to hammer you on an off the cuff comment.
    But I think it demonstrates a real strength of at large PR. A minority population (who feel their needs diverge from the majority) will have representation proportional with their size.
    I think it’s too easy in the current system to draw districts such that a minority is distributed across districts, and has no voice in the legislative body.
    In the above example, it was 20% rural. But I think the argument hold equally well for racial minorities (some discussion of that in the Center for Politics link), religious minorities, or just political minorities (as Brett notes).
    I mean, ideally, there should be no split in the interests of urban/rural, different races, different religions, etc. But practically there are, and I think its important those views get represented in congress.
    Last but not least, in this country folks who live in rural areas generally receive representation in greater proportion than their numbers would call for. That’s by intent, and design.
    My understanding is this correct, and basically fallout from having geographically drawn districts. An example is here:
    http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-us-congress-census-map-htmlstory.html
    I’ve never understood why, however. Couldn’t the rural districts be drawn a little smaller, and the urban districts a little larger?
    Regardless, another problem that would be fixed by PR, dramatic increase in the number of seats, or both.

  490. I don’t quite get the rural overrepresented stuff. Every district had approximately the same number of voters, so how does does that work? Unless that is across states, then I think the design works. There are certainly things that happen in rural areas and less populous states that should be represented. The Senate and Presidential elections certain favor cities, thats enough.

  491. I don’t quite get the rural overrepresented stuff. Every district had approximately the same number of voters, so how does does that work? Unless that is across states, then I think the design works. There are certainly things that happen in rural areas and less populous states that should be represented. The Senate and Presidential elections certain favor cities, thats enough.

  492. I don’t quite get the rural overrepresented stuff. Every district had approximately the same number of voters, so how does does that work? Unless that is across states, then I think the design works. There are certainly things that happen in rural areas and less populous states that should be represented. The Senate and Presidential elections certain favor cities, thats enough.

  493. Tony:
    The notion that rural and urban life are “completely different in almost every way” is arrant nonsense. Life is much more than guns, gods, and gays.
    I wouldn’t describe them as completely different, but bluntly your list of “guns, gods, and gays” misses a lot of more practical concerns.
    For example, one of the major roles of government is infrastructure, and the infrastructure requirements of urban and rural voters are very different.
    Same thing with public safety (police, fire, ems) needs.
    Solutions that may work in an urban environment may not work in a rural one. And vice versa.

  494. Tony:
    The notion that rural and urban life are “completely different in almost every way” is arrant nonsense. Life is much more than guns, gods, and gays.
    I wouldn’t describe them as completely different, but bluntly your list of “guns, gods, and gays” misses a lot of more practical concerns.
    For example, one of the major roles of government is infrastructure, and the infrastructure requirements of urban and rural voters are very different.
    Same thing with public safety (police, fire, ems) needs.
    Solutions that may work in an urban environment may not work in a rural one. And vice versa.

  495. Tony:
    The notion that rural and urban life are “completely different in almost every way” is arrant nonsense. Life is much more than guns, gods, and gays.
    I wouldn’t describe them as completely different, but bluntly your list of “guns, gods, and gays” misses a lot of more practical concerns.
    For example, one of the major roles of government is infrastructure, and the infrastructure requirements of urban and rural voters are very different.
    Same thing with public safety (police, fire, ems) needs.
    Solutions that may work in an urban environment may not work in a rural one. And vice versa.

  496. Marty:
    Every district had approximately the same number of voters, so how does does that work?
    See my LA Times link about CA districts. They don’t have roughly the same number of voters.
    I don’t really get why that is…but rural districts tend to have more voters.
    Although, now that I think about it…that would dilute the power of the rural voter, not increase it.

  497. Marty:
    Every district had approximately the same number of voters, so how does does that work?
    See my LA Times link about CA districts. They don’t have roughly the same number of voters.
    I don’t really get why that is…but rural districts tend to have more voters.
    Although, now that I think about it…that would dilute the power of the rural voter, not increase it.

  498. Marty:
    Every district had approximately the same number of voters, so how does does that work?
    See my LA Times link about CA districts. They don’t have roughly the same number of voters.
    I don’t really get why that is…but rural districts tend to have more voters.
    Although, now that I think about it…that would dilute the power of the rural voter, not increase it.

  502. “All of that said, the virtue of subsidiarity – the thing that is good about it – is that it (ideally) yields public policy that is a closer fit to what folks want.”
    What folks want? Whatever it is, there is always a guy right next to you in America who is prepared to be an as*hole to make sure you can’t have it, or vice versa.
    This rural vrs city slicker deal. Ya mean we in the city might be able to vote down agricultural support prices? I could see that enabling the formation of virulent rural a4shole coalitions.
    I attended my fair share of local school board and county commissioner meetings in my day and I’ve never encountered so many rude as#holes in my life.
    They’d usually sit in the first row or two, dozens of them, and snipe, loud enough to hear, at everything and everyone — the Board, any other citizens provided mic time who might politely express any sort of view opposed to theirs — it was like the British Parliament on steroids, except that they were dozens of Joe Wilsons clones and not an effective. gavel in sight.
    A few of these cases, inevitably, would be wearing black Second Amendment T-shirts with diagrams of automatic weapons on them.
    THAT certainly encourages open debate.
    Parenthetically, if you need to know, I never opened my mouth in these meetings, being a little shy among folks I don’t know. I was there to observe governance, pretty much, and really didn’t have a dog in any of the fights.
    But once, after sitting and gritting my teeth for about an hour at a school board meeting, a bunch of these guys (always guys, occasionally one or two of their right-wing –what did you think, they were hippies angry that granola wasn’t being served at school lunch — molls would show up to lend support) were pretty much heckling a woman talking about something or other and, since they were ignoring the Chair’s requests for a little courtesy, I shouted really loudly (I CAN project) “Hey, shut your mouths and let the lady talk!” and maybe for three minutes, the rest of us got a little quiet relief from as*sholes.
    I learned something from that encounter about confronting big mouths, and in fact, started to develop my “I’m not an as*hole, but I play one on the internet” manner, which I don’t know if you’ve noticed, heh, I fall into here frequently.*
    I also started listening around that time to AM right-wing talk radio in my car to see where all of this was coming from, because when a few if these cases managed to have the guts to actually request microphone time, I was rolling in the aisles at their Foghorn-Leghorn deliveries.
    I hadn’t heard that since college when the occasional as*hole would grab a microphone from the more reasonable folks droning on about our foreign policy vis a vis the invasion of Cambodia, and exhort the assembled rapt ones to “Off the Pigs!”.
    Come to think of it, those characters and the as*holes at the school board meetings were probably the SAME guys, older, and having honed their as*holery to a keening pitch.
    Very early on in the charter school movement, some twenty years ago, I volunteered to help a charter school get up and running by heading their grant committee, after a charter law was passed in my state, and because I thought their particular concept was interesting.
    Most of them very nice people, with strong views maybe adverse to mine, but nevertheless good listeners, Mr. Rogers, who could be worked with to further the goal of getting the school open. Not Allen West. Not Joni Ernst. Not Steve King. Not Sean Hannity. Not Al Sharpton (see how fair and balanced I can be?)
    But, of course, there were the as*holes, (and again, they weren’t Montessori, tree hugging, kumbaya types), who at the drop of a hat in any meeting no matter the topic of discussion, would harangue the rest us about the Marxist-Leninist Bill and Hillary, taxes, the dreams of no Federal government whatsoever, taxes, and Ayn Rand’s subtle thoughts on gummint schools, blah, blahblah, taxes, blahblah.
    I would think to myself, maybe I should wear a T-shirt with a gun on it, not to shoot them, but instead myself so I didn’t have to hear it anymore.
    I quit that gig. Happily the school opened, but, unhappily, closed a few years later for reasons unknown to me.
    And, by the way, I much prefer an a#shole like me who threatens to shoot people but doesn’t own a weapon to the a”shole who threatens to shoot people who carries a concealed weapon and gets elected to the f*cking Congress.*
    That could all change, depending on how my as*hole act develops, given the ascendance of the real a&sholes.
    My point being — the worst government is the one closest to the as*holes.
    The beauty of the conservative movement is that they have managed move a8sholery so effectively up the ladder into State and Federal power.
    My idea of subsidiarity would be to let the as8holes have their own country, and the rest of us live in peace, with the exception of my long-windedness.
    Watchtowers, spotlights, snipers, nuclear weapons pointing INTO this new country of A$sholandia, with its Confederate flag and its 24-hour Radio-Free As*hole, featuring the collected tweets of Sarah Death Palin, because at any time, their leaders (McCain, Graham, the lot of them) would be mobilizing to invade our little homeland of peace and contentment and billy goat farms.
    The fence between us would have a little door installed to facilitate citizen exchanges between the two countries, ten of our undercover as*holes in exchange for one of their former as*holes who couldn’t believe what big effing as*holes were running As8hollandia from their capital city, A*sholia.
    Course, this arrangement could go awry when it was discovered that both Brett and I were living together in one or the other of our new city-states, and there would immediately be a breakaway, third province required to further separate the 50 shades of as*holery. 😉
    *My favorite example of an a*shole discovering the antidote to as*holery at the local level happened a few years ago in Colorado Springs, home of as*holery run rampant for awhile, when the right wing city fathers made it legal to carry weapons into Government offices, including public meetings.
    After a few months of this nonsense, the City Fathers started to notice that a guy of unknown political persuasion was sitting in the back row of every crowded city council (maybe it was county commissioners) public meeting, holding a rifle for all to see.
    These as*holes (they always turn out to be pansies when it even looks like the barrel of the weapons they love is pointed at their testicles) finally added a codicil to the local ordinance that forbid carrying weapons into gummint buildings, you know, near THEM.
    Which is now also state law, though you can carry in public, so that as*holes are one step closer to shooting the rest of us.

  503. “All of that said, the virtue of subsidiarity – the thing that is good about it – is that it (ideally) yields public policy that is a closer fit to what folks want.”
    What folks want? Whatever it is, there is always a guy right next to you in America who is prepared to be an as*hole to make sure you can’t have it, or vice versa.
    This rural vrs city slicker deal. Ya mean we in the city might be able to vote down agricultural support prices? I could see that enabling the formation of virulent rural a4shole coalitions.
    I attended my fair share of local school board and county commissioner meetings in my day and I’ve never encountered so many rude as#holes in my life.
    They’d usually sit in the first row or two, dozens of them, and snipe, loud enough to hear, at everything and everyone — the Board, any other citizens provided mic time who might politely express any sort of view opposed to theirs — it was like the British Parliament on steroids, except that they were dozens of Joe Wilsons clones and not an effective. gavel in sight.
    A few of these cases, inevitably, would be wearing black Second Amendment T-shirts with diagrams of automatic weapons on them.
    THAT certainly encourages open debate.
    Parenthetically, if you need to know, I never opened my mouth in these meetings, being a little shy among folks I don’t know. I was there to observe governance, pretty much, and really didn’t have a dog in any of the fights.
    But once, after sitting and gritting my teeth for about an hour at a school board meeting, a bunch of these guys (always guys, occasionally one or two of their right-wing –what did you think, they were hippies angry that granola wasn’t being served at school lunch — molls would show up to lend support) were pretty much heckling a woman talking about something or other and, since they were ignoring the Chair’s requests for a little courtesy, I shouted really loudly (I CAN project) “Hey, shut your mouths and let the lady talk!” and maybe for three minutes, the rest of us got a little quiet relief from as*sholes.
    I learned something from that encounter about confronting big mouths, and in fact, started to develop my “I’m not an as*hole, but I play one on the internet” manner, which I don’t know if you’ve noticed, heh, I fall into here frequently.*
    I also started listening around that time to AM right-wing talk radio in my car to see where all of this was coming from, because when a few if these cases managed to have the guts to actually request microphone time, I was rolling in the aisles at their Foghorn-Leghorn deliveries.
    I hadn’t heard that since college when the occasional as*hole would grab a microphone from the more reasonable folks droning on about our foreign policy vis a vis the invasion of Cambodia, and exhort the assembled rapt ones to “Off the Pigs!”.
    Come to think of it, those characters and the as*holes at the school board meetings were probably the SAME guys, older, and having honed their as*holery to a keening pitch.
    Very early on in the charter school movement, some twenty years ago, I volunteered to help a charter school get up and running by heading their grant committee, after a charter law was passed in my state, and because I thought their particular concept was interesting.
    Most of them very nice people, with strong views maybe adverse to mine, but nevertheless good listeners, Mr. Rogers, who could be worked with to further the goal of getting the school open. Not Allen West. Not Joni Ernst. Not Steve King. Not Sean Hannity. Not Al Sharpton (see how fair and balanced I can be?)
    But, of course, there were the as*holes, (and again, they weren’t Montessori, tree hugging, kumbaya types), who at the drop of a hat in any meeting no matter the topic of discussion, would harangue the rest us about the Marxist-Leninist Bill and Hillary, taxes, the dreams of no Federal government whatsoever, taxes, and Ayn Rand’s subtle thoughts on gummint schools, blah, blahblah, taxes, blahblah.
    I would think to myself, maybe I should wear a T-shirt with a gun on it, not to shoot them, but instead myself so I didn’t have to hear it anymore.
    I quit that gig. Happily the school opened, but, unhappily, closed a few years later for reasons unknown to me.
    And, by the way, I much prefer an a#shole like me who threatens to shoot people but doesn’t own a weapon to the a”shole who threatens to shoot people who carries a concealed weapon and gets elected to the f*cking Congress.*
    That could all change, depending on how my as*hole act develops, given the ascendance of the real a&sholes.
    My point being — the worst government is the one closest to the as*holes.
    The beauty of the conservative movement is that they have managed move a8sholery so effectively up the ladder into State and Federal power.
    My idea of subsidiarity would be to let the as8holes have their own country, and the rest of us live in peace, with the exception of my long-windedness.
    Watchtowers, spotlights, snipers, nuclear weapons pointing INTO this new country of A$sholandia, with its Confederate flag and its 24-hour Radio-Free As*hole, featuring the collected tweets of Sarah Death Palin, because at any time, their leaders (McCain, Graham, the lot of them) would be mobilizing to invade our little homeland of peace and contentment and billy goat farms.
    The fence between us would have a little door installed to facilitate citizen exchanges between the two countries, ten of our undercover as*holes in exchange for one of their former as*holes who couldn’t believe what big effing as*holes were running As8hollandia from their capital city, A*sholia.
    Course, this arrangement could go awry when it was discovered that both Brett and I were living together in one or the other of our new city-states, and there would immediately be a breakaway, third province required to further separate the 50 shades of as*holery. 😉
    *My favorite example of an a*shole discovering the antidote to as*holery at the local level happened a few years ago in Colorado Springs, home of as*holery run rampant for awhile, when the right wing city fathers made it legal to carry weapons into Government offices, including public meetings.
    After a few months of this nonsense, the City Fathers started to notice that a guy of unknown political persuasion was sitting in the back row of every crowded city council (maybe it was county commissioners) public meeting, holding a rifle for all to see.
    These as*holes (they always turn out to be pansies when it even looks like the barrel of the weapons they love is pointed at their testicles) finally added a codicil to the local ordinance that forbid carrying weapons into gummint buildings, you know, near THEM.
    Which is now also state law, though you can carry in public, so that as*holes are one step closer to shooting the rest of us.

  504. “All of that said, the virtue of subsidiarity – the thing that is good about it – is that it (ideally) yields public policy that is a closer fit to what folks want.”
    What folks want? Whatever it is, there is always a guy right next to you in America who is prepared to be an as*hole to make sure you can’t have it, or vice versa.
    This rural vrs city slicker deal. Ya mean we in the city might be able to vote down agricultural support prices? I could see that enabling the formation of virulent rural a4shole coalitions.
    I attended my fair share of local school board and county commissioner meetings in my day and I’ve never encountered so many rude as#holes in my life.
    They’d usually sit in the first row or two, dozens of them, and snipe, loud enough to hear, at everything and everyone — the Board, any other citizens provided mic time who might politely express any sort of view opposed to theirs — it was like the British Parliament on steroids, except that they were dozens of Joe Wilsons clones and not an effective. gavel in sight.
    A few of these cases, inevitably, would be wearing black Second Amendment T-shirts with diagrams of automatic weapons on them.
    THAT certainly encourages open debate.
    Parenthetically, if you need to know, I never opened my mouth in these meetings, being a little shy among folks I don’t know. I was there to observe governance, pretty much, and really didn’t have a dog in any of the fights.
    But once, after sitting and gritting my teeth for about an hour at a school board meeting, a bunch of these guys (always guys, occasionally one or two of their right-wing –what did you think, they were hippies angry that granola wasn’t being served at school lunch — molls would show up to lend support) were pretty much heckling a woman talking about something or other and, since they were ignoring the Chair’s requests for a little courtesy, I shouted really loudly (I CAN project) “Hey, shut your mouths and let the lady talk!” and maybe for three minutes, the rest of us got a little quiet relief from as*sholes.
    I learned something from that encounter about confronting big mouths, and in fact, started to develop my “I’m not an as*hole, but I play one on the internet” manner, which I don’t know if you’ve noticed, heh, I fall into here frequently.*
    I also started listening around that time to AM right-wing talk radio in my car to see where all of this was coming from, because when a few if these cases managed to have the guts to actually request microphone time, I was rolling in the aisles at their Foghorn-Leghorn deliveries.
    I hadn’t heard that since college when the occasional as*hole would grab a microphone from the more reasonable folks droning on about our foreign policy vis a vis the invasion of Cambodia, and exhort the assembled rapt ones to “Off the Pigs!”.
    Come to think of it, those characters and the as*holes at the school board meetings were probably the SAME guys, older, and having honed their as*holery to a keening pitch.
    Very early on in the charter school movement, some twenty years ago, I volunteered to help a charter school get up and running by heading their grant committee, after a charter law was passed in my state, and because I thought their particular concept was interesting.
    Most of them very nice people, with strong views maybe adverse to mine, but nevertheless good listeners, Mr. Rogers, who could be worked with to further the goal of getting the school open. Not Allen West. Not Joni Ernst. Not Steve King. Not Sean Hannity. Not Al Sharpton (see how fair and balanced I can be?)
    But, of course, there were the as*holes, (and again, they weren’t Montessori, tree hugging, kumbaya types), who at the drop of a hat in any meeting no matter the topic of discussion, would harangue the rest us about the Marxist-Leninist Bill and Hillary, taxes, the dreams of no Federal government whatsoever, taxes, and Ayn Rand’s subtle thoughts on gummint schools, blah, blahblah, taxes, blahblah.
    I would think to myself, maybe I should wear a T-shirt with a gun on it, not to shoot them, but instead myself so I didn’t have to hear it anymore.
    I quit that gig. Happily the school opened, but, unhappily, closed a few years later for reasons unknown to me.
    And, by the way, I much prefer an a#shole like me who threatens to shoot people but doesn’t own a weapon to the a”shole who threatens to shoot people who carries a concealed weapon and gets elected to the f*cking Congress.*
    That could all change, depending on how my as*hole act develops, given the ascendance of the real a&sholes.
    My point being — the worst government is the one closest to the as*holes.
    The beauty of the conservative movement is that they have managed move a8sholery so effectively up the ladder into State and Federal power.
    My idea of subsidiarity would be to let the as8holes have their own country, and the rest of us live in peace, with the exception of my long-windedness.
    Watchtowers, spotlights, snipers, nuclear weapons pointing INTO this new country of A$sholandia, with its Confederate flag and its 24-hour Radio-Free As*hole, featuring the collected tweets of Sarah Death Palin, because at any time, their leaders (McCain, Graham, the lot of them) would be mobilizing to invade our little homeland of peace and contentment and billy goat farms.
    The fence between us would have a little door installed to facilitate citizen exchanges between the two countries, ten of our undercover as*holes in exchange for one of their former as*holes who couldn’t believe what big effing as*holes were running As8hollandia from their capital city, A*sholia.
    Course, this arrangement could go awry when it was discovered that both Brett and I were living together in one or the other of our new city-states, and there would immediately be a breakaway, third province required to further separate the 50 shades of as*holery. 😉
    *My favorite example of an a*shole discovering the antidote to as*holery at the local level happened a few years ago in Colorado Springs, home of as*holery run rampant for awhile, when the right wing city fathers made it legal to carry weapons into Government offices, including public meetings.
    After a few months of this nonsense, the City Fathers started to notice that a guy of unknown political persuasion was sitting in the back row of every crowded city council (maybe it was county commissioners) public meeting, holding a rifle for all to see.
    These as*holes (they always turn out to be pansies when it even looks like the barrel of the weapons they love is pointed at their testicles) finally added a codicil to the local ordinance that forbid carrying weapons into gummint buildings, you know, near THEM.
    Which is now also state law, though you can carry in public, so that as*holes are one step closer to shooting the rest of us.

  508. I don’t quite get the rural overrepresented stuff.
    If we use population density as a measure of urban vs rural:
    New Jersey : 1,201 people per square mile. 2 Senators.
    Alaska: 1.3 people per square mile. 2 senators.
    The President is elected by the electoral college. Each state has one elector per member of Congress, so once again low-population states are represented out of proportion to their actual numbers.
    The House is more accurately representative, with some rural states (Montana) having fewer reps by population than the national average, and others (Wyoming) having more.
    I recognize that “low population state” includes places which are not particularly rural (e.g. Rhode Island) but in general it favors rural states.

  509. I don’t quite get the rural overrepresented stuff.
    If we use population density as a measure of urban vs rural:
    New Jersey : 1,201 people per square mile. 2 Senators.
    Alaska: 1.3 people per square mile. 2 senators.
    The President is elected by the electoral college. Each state has one elector per member of Congress, so once again low-population states are represented out of proportion to their actual numbers.
    The House is more accurately representative, with some rural states (Montana) having fewer reps by population than the national average, and others (Wyoming) having more.
    I recognize that “low population state” includes places which are not particularly rural (e.g. Rhode Island) but in general it favors rural states.

  510. I don’t quite get the rural overrepresented stuff.
    If we use population density as a measure of urban vs rural:
    New Jersey : 1,201 people per square mile. 2 Senators.
    Alaska: 1.3 people per square mile. 2 senators.
    The President is elected by the electoral college. Each state has one elector per member of Congress, so once again low-population states are represented out of proportion to their actual numbers.
    The House is more accurately representative, with some rural states (Montana) having fewer reps by population than the national average, and others (Wyoming) having more.
    I recognize that “low population state” includes places which are not particularly rural (e.g. Rhode Island) but in general it favors rural states.

  511. I guess the other thing worth mentioning when the topic of subsidiary and/or federalism comes up is that we did actually try that on.
    It was called the Articles of Confederation, and it was generally considered to be a not-particularly-workable idea.
    And, in fact, we abandoned it. Not because of some evil will-to-power on the part of oppressive statist overlords, but because it didn’t work.
    In fact, it sucked.
    After you’ve had ‘good’ ideas blow up in your face over and over, the appeal of leaving things that work well enough alone starts to grow on you.
    Exactly.

  512. I guess the other thing worth mentioning when the topic of subsidiary and/or federalism comes up is that we did actually try that on.
    It was called the Articles of Confederation, and it was generally considered to be a not-particularly-workable idea.
    And, in fact, we abandoned it. Not because of some evil will-to-power on the part of oppressive statist overlords, but because it didn’t work.
    In fact, it sucked.
    After you’ve had ‘good’ ideas blow up in your face over and over, the appeal of leaving things that work well enough alone starts to grow on you.
    Exactly.

  513. I guess the other thing worth mentioning when the topic of subsidiary and/or federalism comes up is that we did actually try that on.
    It was called the Articles of Confederation, and it was generally considered to be a not-particularly-workable idea.
    And, in fact, we abandoned it. Not because of some evil will-to-power on the part of oppressive statist overlords, but because it didn’t work.
    In fact, it sucked.
    After you’ve had ‘good’ ideas blow up in your face over and over, the appeal of leaving things that work well enough alone starts to grow on you.
    Exactly.

  514. Well Russell, I specified that across states density was different, one half of one of the branches of Federal government specifically designed to even out things .
    However cities are overrepresented in the Senate elections in each state. Get out the vote campaigns are always focused in the cities.

  515. Well Russell, I specified that across states density was different, one half of one of the branches of Federal government specifically designed to even out things .
    However cities are overrepresented in the Senate elections in each state. Get out the vote campaigns are always focused in the cities.

  516. Well Russell, I specified that across states density was different, one half of one of the branches of Federal government specifically designed to even out things .
    However cities are overrepresented in the Senate elections in each state. Get out the vote campaigns are always focused in the cities.

  517. Marty:
    It’s funny, but not in a ha-ha way, but Mitt Romney tried and failed to institute many of the things you hate about ObamaCare, including high deductibles, into his Massachussetts RomneyCare scheme.
    Obama, the conservative, tried and succeeded, to institute many of Romney’s concepts into Obamacare.
    Without a single Republican vote and cries of Socialism! from the aforementioned as&hole, Mitt Romney.
    “Politics is a sporting event by other means” – Michael Foucault
    “As you know, sir, this means sports” The looney Tunes version of Winston Churchill.
    http://mittromneycentral.com/resources/romneycare/

  518. Marty:
    It’s funny, but not in a ha-ha way, but Mitt Romney tried and failed to institute many of the things you hate about ObamaCare, including high deductibles, into his Massachussetts RomneyCare scheme.
    Obama, the conservative, tried and succeeded, to institute many of Romney’s concepts into Obamacare.
    Without a single Republican vote and cries of Socialism! from the aforementioned as&hole, Mitt Romney.
    “Politics is a sporting event by other means” – Michael Foucault
    “As you know, sir, this means sports” The looney Tunes version of Winston Churchill.
    http://mittromneycentral.com/resources/romneycare/

  519. Marty:
    It’s funny, but not in a ha-ha way, but Mitt Romney tried and failed to institute many of the things you hate about ObamaCare, including high deductibles, into his Massachussetts RomneyCare scheme.
    Obama, the conservative, tried and succeeded, to institute many of Romney’s concepts into Obamacare.
    Without a single Republican vote and cries of Socialism! from the aforementioned as&hole, Mitt Romney.
    “Politics is a sporting event by other means” – Michael Foucault
    “As you know, sir, this means sports” The looney Tunes version of Winston Churchill.
    http://mittromneycentral.com/resources/romneycare/

  520. By the way, Marty, the irony of you, Dobie Gillis, enrolled in Obamacare, and I, Maynard G Krebs, paying my own freight* has thrown me off a bit.
    I’m going to take the rest of the weekend off to wrap my head around this remarkable turn of events.
    What, are the female nurses and doctors in Obamacare prettier? Or just more competent?
    *not exactly in the private market — a group plan but I pay the full premium.

  521. By the way, Marty, the irony of you, Dobie Gillis, enrolled in Obamacare, and I, Maynard G Krebs, paying my own freight* has thrown me off a bit.
    I’m going to take the rest of the weekend off to wrap my head around this remarkable turn of events.
    What, are the female nurses and doctors in Obamacare prettier? Or just more competent?
    *not exactly in the private market — a group plan but I pay the full premium.

  522. By the way, Marty, the irony of you, Dobie Gillis, enrolled in Obamacare, and I, Maynard G Krebs, paying my own freight* has thrown me off a bit.
    I’m going to take the rest of the weekend off to wrap my head around this remarkable turn of events.
    What, are the female nurses and doctors in Obamacare prettier? Or just more competent?
    *not exactly in the private market — a group plan but I pay the full premium.

  523. Its ok Maynard, I didn’t get subsidized, so I paid 1500 a month. I didn’t make enough to qualify for a subsidy, but had too much for Medicare. So I used up all my 401k money paying for it, while I also paid for all my medical care. Good times.

  524. Its ok Maynard, I didn’t get subsidized, so I paid 1500 a month. I didn’t make enough to qualify for a subsidy, but had too much for Medicare. So I used up all my 401k money paying for it, while I also paid for all my medical care. Good times.

  525. Its ok Maynard, I didn’t get subsidized, so I paid 1500 a month. I didn’t make enough to qualify for a subsidy, but had too much for Medicare. So I used up all my 401k money paying for it, while I also paid for all my medical care. Good times.

  526. “It was called the Articles of Confederation, and it was generally considered to be a not-particularly-workable idea.”
    We didn’t abandon the concept of subsidiarity and federalism when we replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. We just adjusted the balance a little. Primarily by giving the federal government its own source of income, instead of making it reliant on the states financing it.
    The system that was set up under the Constitution was still federalist in nature.
    In regards to variation in numbers of voters between districts, the districts are generally equalized by population of *people*, not voters. A considerable portion of the population in some areas of the country are not voters, perhaps not even citizens. But they still count towards population in equalizing the districts.
    Whether that should be the case is a matter of some controversy.

  527. “It was called the Articles of Confederation, and it was generally considered to be a not-particularly-workable idea.”
    We didn’t abandon the concept of subsidiarity and federalism when we replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. We just adjusted the balance a little. Primarily by giving the federal government its own source of income, instead of making it reliant on the states financing it.
    The system that was set up under the Constitution was still federalist in nature.
    In regards to variation in numbers of voters between districts, the districts are generally equalized by population of *people*, not voters. A considerable portion of the population in some areas of the country are not voters, perhaps not even citizens. But they still count towards population in equalizing the districts.
    Whether that should be the case is a matter of some controversy.

  528. “It was called the Articles of Confederation, and it was generally considered to be a not-particularly-workable idea.”
    We didn’t abandon the concept of subsidiarity and federalism when we replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. We just adjusted the balance a little. Primarily by giving the federal government its own source of income, instead of making it reliant on the states financing it.
    The system that was set up under the Constitution was still federalist in nature.
    In regards to variation in numbers of voters between districts, the districts are generally equalized by population of *people*, not voters. A considerable portion of the population in some areas of the country are not voters, perhaps not even citizens. But they still count towards population in equalizing the districts.
    Whether that should be the case is a matter of some controversy.

  529. Well Dobe, the way things are going for me, our unlikely reverse economic inequality may converge into penury for the both of us.
    Maybe the malt shop will be giving out free Ebola vaccines.
    (You meant Medicare, not Medicaid, I presume, given that you can never have too much for Medicare, a pony the usual suspects want to rustle as well, so they can isolate the parasites among us for election-year sporting events, known as pogroms in certain parts of the world.

  530. Well Dobe, the way things are going for me, our unlikely reverse economic inequality may converge into penury for the both of us.
    Maybe the malt shop will be giving out free Ebola vaccines.
    (You meant Medicare, not Medicaid, I presume, given that you can never have too much for Medicare, a pony the usual suspects want to rustle as well, so they can isolate the parasites among us for election-year sporting events, known as pogroms in certain parts of the world.

  531. Well Dobe, the way things are going for me, our unlikely reverse economic inequality may converge into penury for the both of us.
    Maybe the malt shop will be giving out free Ebola vaccines.
    (You meant Medicare, not Medicaid, I presume, given that you can never have too much for Medicare, a pony the usual suspects want to rustle as well, so they can isolate the parasites among us for election-year sporting events, known as pogroms in certain parts of the world.

  532. Convergent penury is the goal of the current administration. aided by the lack of empathy of the far right, they are likely to be successful at redistributing all income so everyone makes a 10.50 minimum wage and has crappy insurance, unless you are one of the .01%. Then you can cover even catastrophic costs.

  533. Convergent penury is the goal of the current administration. aided by the lack of empathy of the far right, they are likely to be successful at redistributing all income so everyone makes a 10.50 minimum wage and has crappy insurance, unless you are one of the .01%. Then you can cover even catastrophic costs.

  534. Convergent penury is the goal of the current administration. aided by the lack of empathy of the far right, they are likely to be successful at redistributing all income so everyone makes a 10.50 minimum wage and has crappy insurance, unless you are one of the .01%. Then you can cover even catastrophic costs.

  535. the districts are generally equalized by population of *people*
    That does not seem to be correct (except in MA). Sadly, I can’t find a single source where all this data is compiled, but CA, CO, NY, OR, TX, PA, FL all have pretty large spreads in the *population* of their districts, according to Wolfram Alpha (using a query of “population of congressional districts”).
    I didn’t check every state in the union, but MA is oddly consistent compared to the rest. Good for them.

  536. the districts are generally equalized by population of *people*
    That does not seem to be correct (except in MA). Sadly, I can’t find a single source where all this data is compiled, but CA, CO, NY, OR, TX, PA, FL all have pretty large spreads in the *population* of their districts, according to Wolfram Alpha (using a query of “population of congressional districts”).
    I didn’t check every state in the union, but MA is oddly consistent compared to the rest. Good for them.

  537. the districts are generally equalized by population of *people*
    That does not seem to be correct (except in MA). Sadly, I can’t find a single source where all this data is compiled, but CA, CO, NY, OR, TX, PA, FL all have pretty large spreads in the *population* of their districts, according to Wolfram Alpha (using a query of “population of congressional districts”).
    I didn’t check every state in the union, but MA is oddly consistent compared to the rest. Good for them.

  541. Re thompson at 10 AM
    That map from the LA times appears to be looking at the pre-redistricting California congressional districts. (perhaps to show how their populations have changed?)
    Looking at the Census Bureau map and numbers, the boundaries are rather different. And the populations look to be a lot closer to uniform.

  542. Re thompson at 10 AM
    That map from the LA times appears to be looking at the pre-redistricting California congressional districts. (perhaps to show how their populations have changed?)
    Looking at the Census Bureau map and numbers, the boundaries are rather different. And the populations look to be a lot closer to uniform.

  543. Re thompson at 10 AM
    That map from the LA times appears to be looking at the pre-redistricting California congressional districts. (perhaps to show how their populations have changed?)
    Looking at the Census Bureau map and numbers, the boundaries are rather different. And the populations look to be a lot closer to uniform.

  544. NC is pretty constant in the low-mid 700Ks, too.
    Convergent penury is the goal of the current administration.
    nonsense. Obama’s real goal is to enslave the white race and use it as labor for building monumental sculptures of great black radicals, including his father, Malcom X.

  545. NC is pretty constant in the low-mid 700Ks, too.
    Convergent penury is the goal of the current administration.
    nonsense. Obama’s real goal is to enslave the white race and use it as labor for building monumental sculptures of great black radicals, including his father, Malcom X.

  546. NC is pretty constant in the low-mid 700Ks, too.
    Convergent penury is the goal of the current administration.
    nonsense. Obama’s real goal is to enslave the white race and use it as labor for building monumental sculptures of great black radicals, including his father, Malcom X.

  547. My understanding is that Congressional districts within a given state are required by law to be as even in population distribution as is practical.
    My understanding is also that “as is practical” is normally enforced to within a 1% – 2% variance.
    I’d be curious to know if any of that is not actually so.

  548. My understanding is that Congressional districts within a given state are required by law to be as even in population distribution as is practical.
    My understanding is also that “as is practical” is normally enforced to within a 1% – 2% variance.
    I’d be curious to know if any of that is not actually so.

  549. My understanding is that Congressional districts within a given state are required by law to be as even in population distribution as is practical.
    My understanding is also that “as is practical” is normally enforced to within a 1% – 2% variance.
    I’d be curious to know if any of that is not actually so.

  559. Reynolds v. Sims
    If I’m not mistaken, the topic of that case was state legislative districts.
    Which are not the same as US Congressional districts, which is (I think) what we’ve been discussing in the thread.

  560. Reynolds v. Sims
    If I’m not mistaken, the topic of that case was state legislative districts.
    Which are not the same as US Congressional districts, which is (I think) what we’ve been discussing in the thread.

  561. Reynolds v. Sims
    If I’m not mistaken, the topic of that case was state legislative districts.
    Which are not the same as US Congressional districts, which is (I think) what we’ve been discussing in the thread.

  565. I’d be curious to know if any of that is not actually so.
    No, its my mistake. I was relying on internet sources without vetting them thoroughly. wj set me straight.

  566. I’d be curious to know if any of that is not actually so.
    No, its my mistake. I was relying on internet sources without vetting them thoroughly. wj set me straight.

  567. I’d be curious to know if any of that is not actually so.
    No, its my mistake. I was relying on internet sources without vetting them thoroughly. wj set me straight.

  568. Convergent penury is the goal of the current administration.
    Marty, do you have an actual source for that?
    I can see how you could believe (albeit inaccurately) that penury was the result of the policies of the current administration.
    But that it is the administration’s goal? You’re going to have to back that up. Or admit that it is made up.

  569. Convergent penury is the goal of the current administration.
    Marty, do you have an actual source for that?
    I can see how you could believe (albeit inaccurately) that penury was the result of the policies of the current administration.
    But that it is the administration’s goal? You’re going to have to back that up. Or admit that it is made up.

  570. Convergent penury is the goal of the current administration.
    Marty, do you have an actual source for that?
    I can see how you could believe (albeit inaccurately) that penury was the result of the policies of the current administration.
    But that it is the administration’s goal? You’re going to have to back that up. Or admit that it is made up.

  571. After tax corporate profits soar to all time highs and wages collapse because of much bigger goals by much bigger goals and longer trends set on place by much bigger and deliberate forces than Obama’s petty tinkering around the edges:
    https://www.google.com/search?q=corporate+profits+over+time&client=firefox-a&hs=gts&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&imgil=H-h5JDdEJp92FM%253A%253B17q6wE447ODOoM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.munknee.com%25252Fcounterpoint-equities-are-not-overvalued%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=H-h5JDdEJp92FM%253A%252C17q6wE447ODOoM%252C_&usg=__H1lNnbfiGRs1kMPEtSiUIRNY29w%3D&biw=1429&bih=994&dpr=0.9&ved=0CEAQyjc&ei=M29eVKWlBtOmyASg0YH4Cg#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=RmTqw2d5GwHR3M%253A%3BOdYo23WgoqbHCM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252F2.bp.blogspot.com%252F-R2pX_ItVR5o%252FTt9Mv5L1ETI%252FAAAAAAAABBs%252FhTxwp5ZS_WE%252Fs1600%252FChart.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fsbynews.blogspot.com%252F2011_12_07_archive.html%3B499%3B392

  572. After tax corporate profits soar to all time highs and wages collapse because of much bigger goals by much bigger goals and longer trends set on place by much bigger and deliberate forces than Obama’s petty tinkering around the edges:
    https://www.google.com/search?q=corporate+profits+over+time&client=firefox-a&hs=gts&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&imgil=H-h5JDdEJp92FM%253A%253B17q6wE447ODOoM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.munknee.com%25252Fcounterpoint-equities-are-not-overvalued%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=H-h5JDdEJp92FM%253A%252C17q6wE447ODOoM%252C_&usg=__H1lNnbfiGRs1kMPEtSiUIRNY29w%3D&biw=1429&bih=994&dpr=0.9&ved=0CEAQyjc&ei=M29eVKWlBtOmyASg0YH4Cg#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=RmTqw2d5GwHR3M%253A%3BOdYo23WgoqbHCM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252F2.bp.blogspot.com%252F-R2pX_ItVR5o%252FTt9Mv5L1ETI%252FAAAAAAAABBs%252FhTxwp5ZS_WE%252Fs1600%252FChart.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fsbynews.blogspot.com%252F2011_12_07_archive.html%3B499%3B392

  573. After tax corporate profits soar to all time highs and wages collapse because of much bigger goals by much bigger goals and longer trends set on place by much bigger and deliberate forces than Obama’s petty tinkering around the edges:
    https://www.google.com/search?q=corporate+profits+over+time&client=firefox-a&hs=gts&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&imgil=H-h5JDdEJp92FM%253A%253B17q6wE447ODOoM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.munknee.com%25252Fcounterpoint-equities-are-not-overvalued%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=H-h5JDdEJp92FM%253A%252C17q6wE447ODOoM%252C_&usg=__H1lNnbfiGRs1kMPEtSiUIRNY29w%3D&biw=1429&bih=994&dpr=0.9&ved=0CEAQyjc&ei=M29eVKWlBtOmyASg0YH4Cg#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=RmTqw2d5GwHR3M%253A%3BOdYo23WgoqbHCM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252F2.bp.blogspot.com%252F-R2pX_ItVR5o%252FTt9Mv5L1ETI%252FAAAAAAAABBs%252FhTxwp5ZS_WE%252Fs1600%252FChart.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fsbynews.blogspot.com%252F2011_12_07_archive.html%3B499%3B392

  574. …because of much bigger goals and longer trends set in place by much bigger and deliberate forces than Obama’s petty tinkering around the edges of malignity.
    There.

  575. …because of much bigger goals and longer trends set in place by much bigger and deliberate forces than Obama’s petty tinkering around the edges of malignity.
    There.

  576. …because of much bigger goals and longer trends set in place by much bigger and deliberate forces than Obama’s petty tinkering around the edges of malignity.
    There.

  580. Yeah, the professor on Gilligan’s Island taught me that one.
    When I got back from the cruise, I went to finishing school.
    After that, I was pretty much finished.

  581. Yeah, the professor on Gilligan’s Island taught me that one.
    When I got back from the cruise, I went to finishing school.
    After that, I was pretty much finished.

  582. Yeah, the professor on Gilligan’s Island taught me that one.
    When I got back from the cruise, I went to finishing school.
    After that, I was pretty much finished.

  586. Back after a fun day. bobbyp and Tony P, thanks for dispatching the Sweden example, any more Brett? Though this comment
    If I were asserting it was uniquely characteristic of the left, rather than statists, you’d have a point. Plenty of statists in the GOP, too.
    suggests that you are too busy retreating to your libertarian turtle shell to think of other examples.
    Perhaps your intensive research into Iberian culture (i.e. your minor in Spanish) may be able to give us more examples of the mythical homogeneous countries where it is so easy to agree because everyone of that same stock. Don’t worry, your clown show won’t be disemvowelled here…

  587. Back after a fun day. bobbyp and Tony P, thanks for dispatching the Sweden example, any more Brett? Though this comment
    If I were asserting it was uniquely characteristic of the left, rather than statists, you’d have a point. Plenty of statists in the GOP, too.
    suggests that you are too busy retreating to your libertarian turtle shell to think of other examples.
    Perhaps your intensive research into Iberian culture (i.e. your minor in Spanish) may be able to give us more examples of the mythical homogeneous countries where it is so easy to agree because everyone of that same stock. Don’t worry, your clown show won’t be disemvowelled here…

  588. Back after a fun day. bobbyp and Tony P, thanks for dispatching the Sweden example, any more Brett? Though this comment
    If I were asserting it was uniquely characteristic of the left, rather than statists, you’d have a point. Plenty of statists in the GOP, too.
    suggests that you are too busy retreating to your libertarian turtle shell to think of other examples.
    Perhaps your intensive research into Iberian culture (i.e. your minor in Spanish) may be able to give us more examples of the mythical homogeneous countries where it is so easy to agree because everyone of that same stock. Don’t worry, your clown show won’t be disemvowelled here…

  589. We just adjusted the balance a little.
    Nuff said.
    In case anyone is interested in what “adjusted .. a little” amounts to, I give you The Articles of Confederation.
    For starters:

    • States are, explicitly, sovereign. Not the people, but the states.
    • No executive
    • No judiciary beyond a maritime court
    • National government is, in its entirety, a unicameral Congress, made up of delegates appointed by the states rather than by election by the people.
    • Each state gets one vote in Congress.
    • To do anything whatsoever – even within the powers and responsibilities explicitly delegated to the federal government – nine out of the 13 states must vote for it.

    I could go on, but that’ll do.
    The transition to the Constitution was not a “little adjustment” but a thorough redefinition of where the seat of sovereignty was. It established the United States as an entity per se, rather than a confederation of sovereign and independent entities.
    The Articles were not a workable way to govern a nation the nation, even a nation as small as the 18th C US.
    “Subsidiarity” and “federalism” are funny words, because they describe a spectrum – a more or less continuous range of degrees to which authority can be delegated from a central government to less-central ones.
    In other words, there isn’t a question of there being no subsidiarity at all. There is, and has always been, and will always be, things that are delegated to local authorities.
    The question is what things to delegate, and to whom, and to what degree.
    To discuss stuff like that usefully, you have to talk about particulars. In the abstract “subsidiarity” is neither good nor bad – it’s virtue depends on whether it makes things better or not.
    And that depends on the particulars.

  590. We just adjusted the balance a little.
    Nuff said.
    In case anyone is interested in what “adjusted .. a little” amounts to, I give you The Articles of Confederation.
    For starters:

    • States are, explicitly, sovereign. Not the people, but the states.
    • No executive
    • No judiciary beyond a maritime court
    • National government is, in its entirety, a unicameral Congress, made up of delegates appointed by the states rather than by election by the people.
    • Each state gets one vote in Congress.
    • To do anything whatsoever – even within the powers and responsibilities explicitly delegated to the federal government – nine out of the 13 states must vote for it.

    I could go on, but that’ll do.
    The transition to the Constitution was not a “little adjustment” but a thorough redefinition of where the seat of sovereignty was. It established the United States as an entity per se, rather than a confederation of sovereign and independent entities.
    The Articles were not a workable way to govern a nation the nation, even a nation as small as the 18th C US.
    “Subsidiarity” and “federalism” are funny words, because they describe a spectrum – a more or less continuous range of degrees to which authority can be delegated from a central government to less-central ones.
    In other words, there isn’t a question of there being no subsidiarity at all. There is, and has always been, and will always be, things that are delegated to local authorities.
    The question is what things to delegate, and to whom, and to what degree.
    To discuss stuff like that usefully, you have to talk about particulars. In the abstract “subsidiarity” is neither good nor bad – it’s virtue depends on whether it makes things better or not.
    And that depends on the particulars.

  591. We just adjusted the balance a little.
    Nuff said.
    In case anyone is interested in what “adjusted .. a little” amounts to, I give you The Articles of Confederation.
    For starters:

    • States are, explicitly, sovereign. Not the people, but the states.
    • No executive
    • No judiciary beyond a maritime court
    • National government is, in its entirety, a unicameral Congress, made up of delegates appointed by the states rather than by election by the people.
    • Each state gets one vote in Congress.
    • To do anything whatsoever – even within the powers and responsibilities explicitly delegated to the federal government – nine out of the 13 states must vote for it.

    I could go on, but that’ll do.
    The transition to the Constitution was not a “little adjustment” but a thorough redefinition of where the seat of sovereignty was. It established the United States as an entity per se, rather than a confederation of sovereign and independent entities.
    The Articles were not a workable way to govern a nation the nation, even a nation as small as the 18th C US.
    “Subsidiarity” and “federalism” are funny words, because they describe a spectrum – a more or less continuous range of degrees to which authority can be delegated from a central government to less-central ones.
    In other words, there isn’t a question of there being no subsidiarity at all. There is, and has always been, and will always be, things that are delegated to local authorities.
    The question is what things to delegate, and to whom, and to what degree.
    To discuss stuff like that usefully, you have to talk about particulars. In the abstract “subsidiarity” is neither good nor bad – it’s virtue depends on whether it makes things better or not.
    And that depends on the particulars.

  592. In short, the Articles of Confederation created a structure less reflective of the ideas of the people living there than the European Union is of the people living within it. And lack of responsiveness to the desires of its population is one of the great current problems of the EU.
    Lots of subsidiarity. Lots of constraints on doing things which are not desired by a majority of the countries (not people) that make up the EU. Lots of, for lack of a better word, kludge — the EU as it is today wasn’t designed the way the US was, it “jes’ growed.” And it shows.

  593. In short, the Articles of Confederation created a structure less reflective of the ideas of the people living there than the European Union is of the people living within it. And lack of responsiveness to the desires of its population is one of the great current problems of the EU.
    Lots of subsidiarity. Lots of constraints on doing things which are not desired by a majority of the countries (not people) that make up the EU. Lots of, for lack of a better word, kludge — the EU as it is today wasn’t designed the way the US was, it “jes’ growed.” And it shows.

  594. In short, the Articles of Confederation created a structure less reflective of the ideas of the people living there than the European Union is of the people living within it. And lack of responsiveness to the desires of its population is one of the great current problems of the EU.
    Lots of subsidiarity. Lots of constraints on doing things which are not desired by a majority of the countries (not people) that make up the EU. Lots of, for lack of a better word, kludge — the EU as it is today wasn’t designed the way the US was, it “jes’ growed.” And it shows.

  595. The question is what things to delegate, and to whom, and to what degree.
    There are some problems with delegation that sometimes people don’t consider. For example, criminal laws differ among the states. In one state, someone might be convicted of a felony for a hit and run involving property damage. That person is then “a felon”. The status of “felon” is recognized nationally, even though in some states the crime wouldn’t have been a felony.
    One that is on everyone’s mind is same-sex marriage. States are supposed to give “full faith and credit” to the laws of other states unless a law of one state violates a “public policy” of another state. Clearly, the same-sex marriage issue needs to be resolved on the federal level since people’s status as “married people” is in jeopardy.
    I agree that local law is preferable in some circumstances, such as real property, traffic, and police administration. But the Federal government should have the power to synthesize things so that people who go from one state to another can expect consistency.

  596. The question is what things to delegate, and to whom, and to what degree.
    There are some problems with delegation that sometimes people don’t consider. For example, criminal laws differ among the states. In one state, someone might be convicted of a felony for a hit and run involving property damage. That person is then “a felon”. The status of “felon” is recognized nationally, even though in some states the crime wouldn’t have been a felony.
    One that is on everyone’s mind is same-sex marriage. States are supposed to give “full faith and credit” to the laws of other states unless a law of one state violates a “public policy” of another state. Clearly, the same-sex marriage issue needs to be resolved on the federal level since people’s status as “married people” is in jeopardy.
    I agree that local law is preferable in some circumstances, such as real property, traffic, and police administration. But the Federal government should have the power to synthesize things so that people who go from one state to another can expect consistency.

  597. The question is what things to delegate, and to whom, and to what degree.
    There are some problems with delegation that sometimes people don’t consider. For example, criminal laws differ among the states. In one state, someone might be convicted of a felony for a hit and run involving property damage. That person is then “a felon”. The status of “felon” is recognized nationally, even though in some states the crime wouldn’t have been a felony.
    One that is on everyone’s mind is same-sex marriage. States are supposed to give “full faith and credit” to the laws of other states unless a law of one state violates a “public policy” of another state. Clearly, the same-sex marriage issue needs to be resolved on the federal level since people’s status as “married people” is in jeopardy.
    I agree that local law is preferable in some circumstances, such as real property, traffic, and police administration. But the Federal government should have the power to synthesize things so that people who go from one state to another can expect consistency.

  598. Marty,
    Well Russell, I specified that across states density was different, one half of one of the branches of Federal government specifically designed to even out things .
    However cities are overrepresented in the Senate elections in each state. Get out the vote campaigns are always focused in the cities.
    Why exactly should things be “evened out?”
    In what sense are cities “overrepresented” in Senate elections? Do city-dwellers get extra votes?

  599. Marty,
    Well Russell, I specified that across states density was different, one half of one of the branches of Federal government specifically designed to even out things .
    However cities are overrepresented in the Senate elections in each state. Get out the vote campaigns are always focused in the cities.
    Why exactly should things be “evened out?”
    In what sense are cities “overrepresented” in Senate elections? Do city-dwellers get extra votes?

  600. Marty,
    Well Russell, I specified that across states density was different, one half of one of the branches of Federal government specifically designed to even out things .
    However cities are overrepresented in the Senate elections in each state. Get out the vote campaigns are always focused in the cities.
    Why exactly should things be “evened out?”
    In what sense are cities “overrepresented” in Senate elections? Do city-dwellers get extra votes?

  601. Look at it this way. City people and country people are different, and have different interests and priorities. So, in fairness, country people as a group should have as much influence on national policy as city people as a group. Otherwise, their rights are being trampled upon.
    See. Once you accept the premise, it’s clear that city people are seriously “overrepresented” in Congress. (And in the state legislatures, for that matter.) You just have to understand where the argument is coming from.

  602. Look at it this way. City people and country people are different, and have different interests and priorities. So, in fairness, country people as a group should have as much influence on national policy as city people as a group. Otherwise, their rights are being trampled upon.
    See. Once you accept the premise, it’s clear that city people are seriously “overrepresented” in Congress. (And in the state legislatures, for that matter.) You just have to understand where the argument is coming from.

  603. Look at it this way. City people and country people are different, and have different interests and priorities. So, in fairness, country people as a group should have as much influence on national policy as city people as a group. Otherwise, their rights are being trampled upon.
    See. Once you accept the premise, it’s clear that city people are seriously “overrepresented” in Congress. (And in the state legislatures, for that matter.) You just have to understand where the argument is coming from.

  604. Thanks for demonstrating that it is always possible to invent a stupid position to attribute to the opposition, in place of their actual views. We were all already aware of that, but I suppose a reminder can’t hurt.

  605. Thanks for demonstrating that it is always possible to invent a stupid position to attribute to the opposition, in place of their actual views. We were all already aware of that, but I suppose a reminder can’t hurt.

  606. Thanks for demonstrating that it is always possible to invent a stupid position to attribute to the opposition, in place of their actual views. We were all already aware of that, but I suppose a reminder can’t hurt.

  607. Brett, if you have an alternate way in which cities are “over-represented,” by all means feel free to share.

  608. Brett, if you have an alternate way in which cities are “over-represented,” by all means feel free to share.

  609. Brett, if you have an alternate way in which cities are “over-represented,” by all means feel free to share.

  610. Of course people get more conservative as they age.
    There must be something wrong with me, then.
    I was a (less-than-zealous) Youth Delegate to the Iowa State Republican Statutory Convention in 1970. My political convictions have trended slowly and steadily left since then.
    The main thing I’ve learned is that the people with wealth and power invariably have extremely good intentions as they go about the process of savagely oppressing everyone else (unless stopped by some countervailing power). After all, the remarkable Mr. Kurtz was an emissary of progress and light.
    The second thing I’ve learned is that it’s nearly impossible for the privileged to understand how privilege pervades their lives, and what life would be like without it.
    Another lesson that I accepted after long resisting: intelligent, thoughtful, decent people will placidly cooperate in acts of utter barbarism, even with manifest evil, if people they look up to have endorsed the crime. (Hanna Arendt got there first; I didn’t want to believe her. Milgram helped me understand; the manner in which otherwise-decent Americans lined up behind Cheney to defend interrogation under physical torture provided ample confirmation.)

  611. Of course people get more conservative as they age.
    There must be something wrong with me, then.
    I was a (less-than-zealous) Youth Delegate to the Iowa State Republican Statutory Convention in 1970. My political convictions have trended slowly and steadily left since then.
    The main thing I’ve learned is that the people with wealth and power invariably have extremely good intentions as they go about the process of savagely oppressing everyone else (unless stopped by some countervailing power). After all, the remarkable Mr. Kurtz was an emissary of progress and light.
    The second thing I’ve learned is that it’s nearly impossible for the privileged to understand how privilege pervades their lives, and what life would be like without it.
    Another lesson that I accepted after long resisting: intelligent, thoughtful, decent people will placidly cooperate in acts of utter barbarism, even with manifest evil, if people they look up to have endorsed the crime. (Hanna Arendt got there first; I didn’t want to believe her. Milgram helped me understand; the manner in which otherwise-decent Americans lined up behind Cheney to defend interrogation under physical torture provided ample confirmation.)

  612. Of course people get more conservative as they age.
    There must be something wrong with me, then.
    I was a (less-than-zealous) Youth Delegate to the Iowa State Republican Statutory Convention in 1970. My political convictions have trended slowly and steadily left since then.
    The main thing I’ve learned is that the people with wealth and power invariably have extremely good intentions as they go about the process of savagely oppressing everyone else (unless stopped by some countervailing power). After all, the remarkable Mr. Kurtz was an emissary of progress and light.
    The second thing I’ve learned is that it’s nearly impossible for the privileged to understand how privilege pervades their lives, and what life would be like without it.
    Another lesson that I accepted after long resisting: intelligent, thoughtful, decent people will placidly cooperate in acts of utter barbarism, even with manifest evil, if people they look up to have endorsed the crime. (Hanna Arendt got there first; I didn’t want to believe her. Milgram helped me understand; the manner in which otherwise-decent Americans lined up behind Cheney to defend interrogation under physical torture provided ample confirmation.)

  613. The US population is about 80% urban, 20% rural.
    The representation of the population in government is, by design, set up to provide a greater share of representation for low-population states. In general, low-population states are rural.
    If rural folks receive less representation at the national level, it is basically because *there are less of them* to represent. And, to the degree that it’s so, it’s so in spite of the fact that specific measures have been taken to mitigate that.
    We could just devolve all public policy to the county level, but I suspect that will create as many problems as it solves.
    Don’t you?
    At a certain point, things just are the way they are. C’est la vie. And by “c’est la vie” I don’t mean “screw you, farmboy”, I mean, literally, that’s life.
    That’s life.
    It’s worth noting that, for something like the last 40 years, voter turnout in Presidential election years has been between 50-60%. In off-years, I don’t think it ever reaches 50%.
    If rural folks are that ill-used, and that motivated to better their lot, there’s a huge opportunity there, waiting to be grasped.
    All they have to do is get off the couch and go vote.

  614. The US population is about 80% urban, 20% rural.
    The representation of the population in government is, by design, set up to provide a greater share of representation for low-population states. In general, low-population states are rural.
    If rural folks receive less representation at the national level, it is basically because *there are less of them* to represent. And, to the degree that it’s so, it’s so in spite of the fact that specific measures have been taken to mitigate that.
    We could just devolve all public policy to the county level, but I suspect that will create as many problems as it solves.
    Don’t you?
    At a certain point, things just are the way they are. C’est la vie. And by “c’est la vie” I don’t mean “screw you, farmboy”, I mean, literally, that’s life.
    That’s life.
    It’s worth noting that, for something like the last 40 years, voter turnout in Presidential election years has been between 50-60%. In off-years, I don’t think it ever reaches 50%.
    If rural folks are that ill-used, and that motivated to better their lot, there’s a huge opportunity there, waiting to be grasped.
    All they have to do is get off the couch and go vote.

  615. The US population is about 80% urban, 20% rural.
    The representation of the population in government is, by design, set up to provide a greater share of representation for low-population states. In general, low-population states are rural.
    If rural folks receive less representation at the national level, it is basically because *there are less of them* to represent. And, to the degree that it’s so, it’s so in spite of the fact that specific measures have been taken to mitigate that.
    We could just devolve all public policy to the county level, but I suspect that will create as many problems as it solves.
    Don’t you?
    At a certain point, things just are the way they are. C’est la vie. And by “c’est la vie” I don’t mean “screw you, farmboy”, I mean, literally, that’s life.
    That’s life.
    It’s worth noting that, for something like the last 40 years, voter turnout in Presidential election years has been between 50-60%. In off-years, I don’t think it ever reaches 50%.
    If rural folks are that ill-used, and that motivated to better their lot, there’s a huge opportunity there, waiting to be grasped.
    All they have to do is get off the couch and go vote.

  622. “Brett, if you have an alternate way in which cities are “over-represented,” by all means feel free to share.”
    I can’t think of any sense in which cities are over-represented. Except maybe that illegal immigrants get counted in redistricting, and tend to cluster in cities, so that the actual legitimate members of our society get a few more votes in the legislature than they should.
    I take issue with the idea that rural areas should have as much influence on national policy as urban areas. That’s not my position. Rather, I think that fewer issues should be matters of national policy. I don’t want the rural areas lording it over the cities, I don’t want the cities lording it over the rural areas.
    I want less lording it over.

  623. “Brett, if you have an alternate way in which cities are “over-represented,” by all means feel free to share.”
    I can’t think of any sense in which cities are over-represented. Except maybe that illegal immigrants get counted in redistricting, and tend to cluster in cities, so that the actual legitimate members of our society get a few more votes in the legislature than they should.
    I take issue with the idea that rural areas should have as much influence on national policy as urban areas. That’s not my position. Rather, I think that fewer issues should be matters of national policy. I don’t want the rural areas lording it over the cities, I don’t want the cities lording it over the rural areas.
    I want less lording it over.

  624. “Brett, if you have an alternate way in which cities are “over-represented,” by all means feel free to share.”
    I can’t think of any sense in which cities are over-represented. Except maybe that illegal immigrants get counted in redistricting, and tend to cluster in cities, so that the actual legitimate members of our society get a few more votes in the legislature than they should.
    I take issue with the idea that rural areas should have as much influence on national policy as urban areas. That’s not my position. Rather, I think that fewer issues should be matters of national policy. I don’t want the rural areas lording it over the cities, I don’t want the cities lording it over the rural areas.
    I want less lording it over.

  625. I think that fewer issues should be matters of national policy.
    I’d probably say “could” rather than “should”, but I generally agree with this.
    The devil is in the details.
    Would you be interested in expanding this to discuss what things do or don’t belong at the national level?

  626. I think that fewer issues should be matters of national policy.
    I’d probably say “could” rather than “should”, but I generally agree with this.
    The devil is in the details.
    Would you be interested in expanding this to discuss what things do or don’t belong at the national level?

  627. I think that fewer issues should be matters of national policy.
    I’d probably say “could” rather than “should”, but I generally agree with this.
    The devil is in the details.
    Would you be interested in expanding this to discuss what things do or don’t belong at the national level?

  628. To start, if we’re going to have the rule of law, every issue that the Constitution doesn’t allocate to the federal government should be off the table, barring a constitutional amendment.
    Building codes. The weather varies radically from one place to another, natural hazards do, too. Minnesota doesn’t get hurricanes. There aren’t water shortages in the states bordering on the Great Lakes. Extreme cold is not a concern in Florida. So, policies that are a response to weather are an obvious case where the federal government should butt out.
    Speed limits on state roads.
    Really, though, the proper question is not, what issues shouldn’t be a matter of federal policy. Per the 10th amendment, state jurisdiction is the default, federal the exception.

  629. To start, if we’re going to have the rule of law, every issue that the Constitution doesn’t allocate to the federal government should be off the table, barring a constitutional amendment.
    Building codes. The weather varies radically from one place to another, natural hazards do, too. Minnesota doesn’t get hurricanes. There aren’t water shortages in the states bordering on the Great Lakes. Extreme cold is not a concern in Florida. So, policies that are a response to weather are an obvious case where the federal government should butt out.
    Speed limits on state roads.
    Really, though, the proper question is not, what issues shouldn’t be a matter of federal policy. Per the 10th amendment, state jurisdiction is the default, federal the exception.

  630. To start, if we’re going to have the rule of law, every issue that the Constitution doesn’t allocate to the federal government should be off the table, barring a constitutional amendment.
    Building codes. The weather varies radically from one place to another, natural hazards do, too. Minnesota doesn’t get hurricanes. There aren’t water shortages in the states bordering on the Great Lakes. Extreme cold is not a concern in Florida. So, policies that are a response to weather are an obvious case where the federal government should butt out.
    Speed limits on state roads.
    Really, though, the proper question is not, what issues shouldn’t be a matter of federal policy. Per the 10th amendment, state jurisdiction is the default, federal the exception.

  631. Brett: I think that fewer issues should be matters of national policy.
    A noble sentiment, but a nebulous one.
    For one thing, even if you and I agreed on “fewer”, we’d still need a way to decide on which.
    And even if we agreed on “which”, we’d still have to settle each “issue” — and either you or I would end up unhappy with the resolution.
    Still, I can see the strategic allure of this devolution ploy. If I don’t like how an “issue” gets settled at the national level, I can always argue it should be left to my own state. And if my state settles it wrong, I can always argue that it should have been left up to my own town. Or my own neighborhood. Or … to me!
    And that’s where we circle back to the national government: my state, my town, my neighbors, might all decide to impose on me in some way, and I might want the federal government to step in on my behalf. Tough cookies for me if I have already drowned it in the bathtub, eh?
    –TP

  632. Brett: I think that fewer issues should be matters of national policy.
    A noble sentiment, but a nebulous one.
    For one thing, even if you and I agreed on “fewer”, we’d still need a way to decide on which.
    And even if we agreed on “which”, we’d still have to settle each “issue” — and either you or I would end up unhappy with the resolution.
    Still, I can see the strategic allure of this devolution ploy. If I don’t like how an “issue” gets settled at the national level, I can always argue it should be left to my own state. And if my state settles it wrong, I can always argue that it should have been left up to my own town. Or my own neighborhood. Or … to me!
    And that’s where we circle back to the national government: my state, my town, my neighbors, might all decide to impose on me in some way, and I might want the federal government to step in on my behalf. Tough cookies for me if I have already drowned it in the bathtub, eh?
    –TP

  633. Brett: I think that fewer issues should be matters of national policy.
    A noble sentiment, but a nebulous one.
    For one thing, even if you and I agreed on “fewer”, we’d still need a way to decide on which.
    And even if we agreed on “which”, we’d still have to settle each “issue” — and either you or I would end up unhappy with the resolution.
    Still, I can see the strategic allure of this devolution ploy. If I don’t like how an “issue” gets settled at the national level, I can always argue it should be left to my own state. And if my state settles it wrong, I can always argue that it should have been left up to my own town. Or my own neighborhood. Or … to me!
    And that’s where we circle back to the national government: my state, my town, my neighbors, might all decide to impose on me in some way, and I might want the federal government to step in on my behalf. Tough cookies for me if I have already drowned it in the bathtub, eh?
    –TP

  637. Google clean water shortages in the Great Lakes region.
    Let me get you started:
    http://www.citymayors.com/environment/us-great-lakes.html
    “Extreme cold is not an issue in Florida.”
    An orange is an orange is an orange by any other lemon.
    Plus, as the seas rise, regardless of what or who is to blame, it rises in Florida and Maine, or do you think if you sail the Atlantic Coast you’ll be sailing uphill one way or the other.
    “Minnesota doesn’t get hurricanes.”
    Duluth, 1913.
    It is all so simple, those imaginary borders between states, and counties, and townships, and property lines.
    I’ll give you speed limits on state roads.
    I would favor, however, a Federal statute disallowing random asset forfeiture by corrupt local constabulary during routine traffic stops, which abound.

  638. Google clean water shortages in the Great Lakes region.
    Let me get you started:
    http://www.citymayors.com/environment/us-great-lakes.html
    “Extreme cold is not an issue in Florida.”
    An orange is an orange is an orange by any other lemon.
    Plus, as the seas rise, regardless of what or who is to blame, it rises in Florida and Maine, or do you think if you sail the Atlantic Coast you’ll be sailing uphill one way or the other.
    “Minnesota doesn’t get hurricanes.”
    Duluth, 1913.
    It is all so simple, those imaginary borders between states, and counties, and townships, and property lines.
    I’ll give you speed limits on state roads.
    I would favor, however, a Federal statute disallowing random asset forfeiture by corrupt local constabulary during routine traffic stops, which abound.

  639. Google clean water shortages in the Great Lakes region.
    Let me get you started:
    http://www.citymayors.com/environment/us-great-lakes.html
    “Extreme cold is not an issue in Florida.”
    An orange is an orange is an orange by any other lemon.
    Plus, as the seas rise, regardless of what or who is to blame, it rises in Florida and Maine, or do you think if you sail the Atlantic Coast you’ll be sailing uphill one way or the other.
    “Minnesota doesn’t get hurricanes.”
    Duluth, 1913.
    It is all so simple, those imaginary borders between states, and counties, and townships, and property lines.
    I’ll give you speed limits on state roads.
    I would favor, however, a Federal statute disallowing random asset forfeiture by corrupt local constabulary during routine traffic stops, which abound.

  643. No Ebola in Colorado.
    Why is Texas so special to get all of the good diseases and the benefit of Federal scientific expertise?
    When I have Ebola, I’ll take it under consideration whether my Federal tax dollars should be spent to come up with a vaccine that prevents me from giving it y’all.
    My Ebola is a local problem.

  644. No Ebola in Colorado.
    Why is Texas so special to get all of the good diseases and the benefit of Federal scientific expertise?
    When I have Ebola, I’ll take it under consideration whether my Federal tax dollars should be spent to come up with a vaccine that prevents me from giving it y’all.
    My Ebola is a local problem.

  645. No Ebola in Colorado.
    Why is Texas so special to get all of the good diseases and the benefit of Federal scientific expertise?
    When I have Ebola, I’ll take it under consideration whether my Federal tax dollars should be spent to come up with a vaccine that prevents me from giving it y’all.
    My Ebola is a local problem.

  649. I’m not a big fan of devolution.
    We have a history that demonstrates that localization of issues tends to produce some pretty bad outcomes. Like Civil Wars.
    We also live in a national economy. We have a national currency. People, goods, ideas, pollution, etc. flow readily from state to state. Having individual sate rules about lots of things is a recipe for disaster.
    We do not live in Jefferson’s America.
    As to Brett’s denial that he doesn’t “want the rural areas lording it over the cities, I don’t believe it. He’s a big fan of the Senate, for example which pretty much is designed to do exactly that.
    And there are federal issues – defense, foreign policy, taxation, whatever – that are in fact being decided by a massively misallocated Congress. That’s the part of federalism that the federalists, the devolvers with revolvers, ignore, or hand-wave about.

  650. I’m not a big fan of devolution.
    We have a history that demonstrates that localization of issues tends to produce some pretty bad outcomes. Like Civil Wars.
    We also live in a national economy. We have a national currency. People, goods, ideas, pollution, etc. flow readily from state to state. Having individual sate rules about lots of things is a recipe for disaster.
    We do not live in Jefferson’s America.
    As to Brett’s denial that he doesn’t “want the rural areas lording it over the cities, I don’t believe it. He’s a big fan of the Senate, for example which pretty much is designed to do exactly that.
    And there are federal issues – defense, foreign policy, taxation, whatever – that are in fact being decided by a massively misallocated Congress. That’s the part of federalism that the federalists, the devolvers with revolvers, ignore, or hand-wave about.

  651. I’m not a big fan of devolution.
    We have a history that demonstrates that localization of issues tends to produce some pretty bad outcomes. Like Civil Wars.
    We also live in a national economy. We have a national currency. People, goods, ideas, pollution, etc. flow readily from state to state. Having individual sate rules about lots of things is a recipe for disaster.
    We do not live in Jefferson’s America.
    As to Brett’s denial that he doesn’t “want the rural areas lording it over the cities, I don’t believe it. He’s a big fan of the Senate, for example which pretty much is designed to do exactly that.
    And there are federal issues – defense, foreign policy, taxation, whatever – that are in fact being decided by a massively misallocated Congress. That’s the part of federalism that the federalists, the devolvers with revolvers, ignore, or hand-wave about.

  652. Building codes.
    Brett probably means something along these lines:
    http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/index.php/commission-on-local-government/mandates-on-local-governments/catalog-of-mandates.html
    Some municipalities may want to avoid building ramps for the wheelchair-bound, because they have different values than municipalities which would include ramps in their building codes.
    I’m not sure what the different values are precisely; maybe there are places in Mississippi and Wyoming that find it side-splitting to watch the legless crawl up stairs and then try to negotiate the automatic revolving doors that can be randomly and thus comically sped up remotely by the producers of Candid Camera.
    Maybe there are local governments who want to permit the construction of office towers out of toothpicks made of asbestos and sliced salami which hasn’t been inspected by the FDA.
    Maybe there are bank/brokerage houses who tell people about the Chinese Walls they constructed in their businesses and nosy SEC building inspectors shouldn’t have a say about whether those should come with egg rolls or not.

  653. Building codes.
    Brett probably means something along these lines:
    http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/index.php/commission-on-local-government/mandates-on-local-governments/catalog-of-mandates.html
    Some municipalities may want to avoid building ramps for the wheelchair-bound, because they have different values than municipalities which would include ramps in their building codes.
    I’m not sure what the different values are precisely; maybe there are places in Mississippi and Wyoming that find it side-splitting to watch the legless crawl up stairs and then try to negotiate the automatic revolving doors that can be randomly and thus comically sped up remotely by the producers of Candid Camera.
    Maybe there are local governments who want to permit the construction of office towers out of toothpicks made of asbestos and sliced salami which hasn’t been inspected by the FDA.
    Maybe there are bank/brokerage houses who tell people about the Chinese Walls they constructed in their businesses and nosy SEC building inspectors shouldn’t have a say about whether those should come with egg rolls or not.

  654. Building codes.
    Brett probably means something along these lines:
    http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/index.php/commission-on-local-government/mandates-on-local-governments/catalog-of-mandates.html
    Some municipalities may want to avoid building ramps for the wheelchair-bound, because they have different values than municipalities which would include ramps in their building codes.
    I’m not sure what the different values are precisely; maybe there are places in Mississippi and Wyoming that find it side-splitting to watch the legless crawl up stairs and then try to negotiate the automatic revolving doors that can be randomly and thus comically sped up remotely by the producers of Candid Camera.
    Maybe there are local governments who want to permit the construction of office towers out of toothpicks made of asbestos and sliced salami which hasn’t been inspected by the FDA.
    Maybe there are bank/brokerage houses who tell people about the Chinese Walls they constructed in their businesses and nosy SEC building inspectors shouldn’t have a say about whether those should come with egg rolls or not.

  655. “I would favor, however, a Federal statute disallowing random asset forfeiture by corrupt local constabulary during routine traffic stops, which abound.”
    Per the 4th and 5th amendments, as extended to the states by the 14th, that ought to be a no-brainer.

  656. “I would favor, however, a Federal statute disallowing random asset forfeiture by corrupt local constabulary during routine traffic stops, which abound.”
    Per the 4th and 5th amendments, as extended to the states by the 14th, that ought to be a no-brainer.

  657. “I would favor, however, a Federal statute disallowing random asset forfeiture by corrupt local constabulary during routine traffic stops, which abound.”
    Per the 4th and 5th amendments, as extended to the states by the 14th, that ought to be a no-brainer.

  658. Per the 10th amendment, state jurisdiction is the default, federal the exception.
    1. The clause “or to he people” is, it would appear, deliberately left out of your interpretation.
    2. Your interpretation lost when the Founders debated the wording of this Amendment.
    3. Your interpretation has repeatedly not been upheld by the US Supreme Court.
    “Tentherism”, as a commonly uttered belief, is a willful distortion of the meaning and intent of the Constitution of The United States.

  659. Per the 10th amendment, state jurisdiction is the default, federal the exception.
    1. The clause “or to he people” is, it would appear, deliberately left out of your interpretation.
    2. Your interpretation lost when the Founders debated the wording of this Amendment.
    3. Your interpretation has repeatedly not been upheld by the US Supreme Court.
    “Tentherism”, as a commonly uttered belief, is a willful distortion of the meaning and intent of the Constitution of The United States.

  660. Per the 10th amendment, state jurisdiction is the default, federal the exception.
    1. The clause “or to he people” is, it would appear, deliberately left out of your interpretation.
    2. Your interpretation lost when the Founders debated the wording of this Amendment.
    3. Your interpretation has repeatedly not been upheld by the US Supreme Court.
    “Tentherism”, as a commonly uttered belief, is a willful distortion of the meaning and intent of the Constitution of The United States.

  661. So when a municipality wants to ban fracking within its borders, and the state government is all “oh no you can’t! we override your preferences!”, Brett will side with the municipality?
    Because that’s a hot issue in TX, PA, NY and probably a few other places.
    What say you, Brett?

  662. So when a municipality wants to ban fracking within its borders, and the state government is all “oh no you can’t! we override your preferences!”, Brett will side with the municipality?
    Because that’s a hot issue in TX, PA, NY and probably a few other places.
    What say you, Brett?

  663. So when a municipality wants to ban fracking within its borders, and the state government is all “oh no you can’t! we override your preferences!”, Brett will side with the municipality?
    Because that’s a hot issue in TX, PA, NY and probably a few other places.
    What say you, Brett?

  664. Really, though, the proper question is not, what issues shouldn’t be a matter of federal policy. Per the 10th amendment, state jurisdiction is the default, federal the exception.
    That’s a very crisp line, which is useful.
    I have two basic questions about it.
    First, the powers that actually are specifically assigned to the feds are fairly broad, and are fairly broadly stated. Along with the “necessary and proper” business at the end of Article I section 8, it makes it IMO less than crystal clear what specific actions do and don’t belong to the feds.
    If you look at the Statutes at Large for the first few Congresses, you will see them authorizing, regulating, and legislating stuff that is, at best, tangentially related to the black letter of Article I section 8.
    So, for instance, giving away federal land, or building aids to navigation, or establishing a national bank.
    Secondly – how do we deal with stuff that is national in scope, but which is outside the specific list of things in Article I section 8?
    National Weather service is a reasonable example.

  665. Really, though, the proper question is not, what issues shouldn’t be a matter of federal policy. Per the 10th amendment, state jurisdiction is the default, federal the exception.
    That’s a very crisp line, which is useful.
    I have two basic questions about it.
    First, the powers that actually are specifically assigned to the feds are fairly broad, and are fairly broadly stated. Along with the “necessary and proper” business at the end of Article I section 8, it makes it IMO less than crystal clear what specific actions do and don’t belong to the feds.
    If you look at the Statutes at Large for the first few Congresses, you will see them authorizing, regulating, and legislating stuff that is, at best, tangentially related to the black letter of Article I section 8.
    So, for instance, giving away federal land, or building aids to navigation, or establishing a national bank.
    Secondly – how do we deal with stuff that is national in scope, but which is outside the specific list of things in Article I section 8?
    National Weather service is a reasonable example.

  666. Really, though, the proper question is not, what issues shouldn’t be a matter of federal policy. Per the 10th amendment, state jurisdiction is the default, federal the exception.
    That’s a very crisp line, which is useful.
    I have two basic questions about it.
    First, the powers that actually are specifically assigned to the feds are fairly broad, and are fairly broadly stated. Along with the “necessary and proper” business at the end of Article I section 8, it makes it IMO less than crystal clear what specific actions do and don’t belong to the feds.
    If you look at the Statutes at Large for the first few Congresses, you will see them authorizing, regulating, and legislating stuff that is, at best, tangentially related to the black letter of Article I section 8.
    So, for instance, giving away federal land, or building aids to navigation, or establishing a national bank.
    Secondly – how do we deal with stuff that is national in scope, but which is outside the specific list of things in Article I section 8?
    National Weather service is a reasonable example.

  667. Mark Twain foresaw free-market weather over a century ago:

    I reverently believe that the Maker who made us all makes everything in New England but the weather. I don’t know who makes that, but I think it must be raw apprentices in the weather-clerk’s factory who experiment and learn how, in New England, for board and clothes, and then are promoted to make weather for countries that require a good article, and will take their custom elsewhere if they don’t get it.
    – “The Weather” speech, 1876

    Clearly, weather forecasting ought to be left to the states.
    –TP

  668. Mark Twain foresaw free-market weather over a century ago:

    I reverently believe that the Maker who made us all makes everything in New England but the weather. I don’t know who makes that, but I think it must be raw apprentices in the weather-clerk’s factory who experiment and learn how, in New England, for board and clothes, and then are promoted to make weather for countries that require a good article, and will take their custom elsewhere if they don’t get it.
    – “The Weather” speech, 1876

    Clearly, weather forecasting ought to be left to the states.
    –TP

  669. Mark Twain foresaw free-market weather over a century ago:

    I reverently believe that the Maker who made us all makes everything in New England but the weather. I don’t know who makes that, but I think it must be raw apprentices in the weather-clerk’s factory who experiment and learn how, in New England, for board and clothes, and then are promoted to make weather for countries that require a good article, and will take their custom elsewhere if they don’t get it.
    – “The Weather” speech, 1876

    Clearly, weather forecasting ought to be left to the states.
    –TP

  679. Movin on up, to the East Side.
    A deluxe apartment in the sky.
    I think it is in the Constitution, the original intent of pursuit of happiness.
    As well as loadin up the truck and movin to Beverly, Hills that is.

  680. Movin on up, to the East Side.
    A deluxe apartment in the sky.
    I think it is in the Constitution, the original intent of pursuit of happiness.
    As well as loadin up the truck and movin to Beverly, Hills that is.

  681. Movin on up, to the East Side.
    A deluxe apartment in the sky.
    I think it is in the Constitution, the original intent of pursuit of happiness.
    As well as loadin up the truck and movin to Beverly, Hills that is.

  688. I’m waiting
    For the encore? Do it the old fashioned American Way….marry the boss’s daughter.
    Best Regards,

  689. I’m waiting
    For the encore? Do it the old fashioned American Way….marry the boss’s daughter.
    Best Regards,

  690. I’m waiting
    For the encore? Do it the old fashioned American Way….marry the boss’s daughter.
    Best Regards,

  706. Because that’s a hot issue in TX, PA, NY and probably a few other places.
    NC now, too.
    i’m a little shocked that the Dem party here didn’t paper the state with signs reading “like fracking? thank a Republican!”

  707. Because that’s a hot issue in TX, PA, NY and probably a few other places.
    NC now, too.
    i’m a little shocked that the Dem party here didn’t paper the state with signs reading “like fracking? thank a Republican!”

  708. Because that’s a hot issue in TX, PA, NY and probably a few other places.
    NC now, too.
    i’m a little shocked that the Dem party here didn’t paper the state with signs reading “like fracking? thank a Republican!”

  709. Now, Jed, you know that Ellie Mae loves her animals, the only thing around here that’s getting a whuppin is Jethro.

  710. Now, Jed, you know that Ellie Mae loves her animals, the only thing around here that’s getting a whuppin is Jethro.

  711. Now, Jed, you know that Ellie Mae loves her animals, the only thing around here that’s getting a whuppin is Jethro.

  712. “i’m a little shocked that the Dem party here didn’t paper the state with signs reading “like fracking? thank a Republican!””
    They were rightly afraid that would help the Republicans.

  713. “i’m a little shocked that the Dem party here didn’t paper the state with signs reading “like fracking? thank a Republican!””
    They were rightly afraid that would help the Republicans.

  714. “i’m a little shocked that the Dem party here didn’t paper the state with signs reading “like fracking? thank a Republican!””
    They were rightly afraid that would help the Republicans.

  715. actually, no. it’s fairly unpopular everywhere in the state, and especially in the districts that are expected to be affected. and the state GOP rammed it down our throats.

  716. actually, no. it’s fairly unpopular everywhere in the state, and especially in the districts that are expected to be affected. and the state GOP rammed it down our throats.

  717. actually, no. it’s fairly unpopular everywhere in the state, and especially in the districts that are expected to be affected. and the state GOP rammed it down our throats.

  718. They were rightly afraid that would help the Republicans.
    I want subsidiarity so that I can take a bazooka to any fracking facility built in my county. Or, in the Quabbin reservoir watershed, for that matter.

  719. They were rightly afraid that would help the Republicans.
    I want subsidiarity so that I can take a bazooka to any fracking facility built in my county. Or, in the Quabbin reservoir watershed, for that matter.

  720. They were rightly afraid that would help the Republicans.
    I want subsidiarity so that I can take a bazooka to any fracking facility built in my county. Or, in the Quabbin reservoir watershed, for that matter.

  721. Clampett thesea days, circa now:
    Ellie, someone done stole the oil clear out from under us. We been fracked by skunks.
    That outatown jasper feller wearing the fancy britches who was outchere last Spring said if I didn’t sign that piece of paper, why, his, what did he call them, “clients” from Texas, varmints more like, would just get under us anyhow all horizontal-like and siphon that oil away and they is nothin we can do about it.
    Granny says the spring water tastes like sommin dropped the dead body of a filthy, rotting pig filth republican in the aquifer.
    Tell Jethro to bring the truck ’round front. We’re going down to the county seat to fill some peckerwood possums with buckshot. Bring yer bullwhip, and tell Granny to load both barrels.
    Wish I had one of them automatic weapons that NRA feller been trying to sell me. Here tell you can shoot off a burst a bullets into the underbrush kill evry skunk in the county.
    I guess I shoulda signed that doggone piece a paper.
    Mebbe, we’d be livin it up in Beverly Hills where I hear tell there’s a banker name a Mista Drysdale who would put our oil proceeds in sumpin called (screws up his face and scratches his head) … credit default swaps on securitized mortgages.
    On t’other hand, mebbe we’re better off mucking pig filth out of the sty then doin business with pig filth vermin.

  722. Clampett thesea days, circa now:
    Ellie, someone done stole the oil clear out from under us. We been fracked by skunks.
    That outatown jasper feller wearing the fancy britches who was outchere last Spring said if I didn’t sign that piece of paper, why, his, what did he call them, “clients” from Texas, varmints more like, would just get under us anyhow all horizontal-like and siphon that oil away and they is nothin we can do about it.
    Granny says the spring water tastes like sommin dropped the dead body of a filthy, rotting pig filth republican in the aquifer.
    Tell Jethro to bring the truck ’round front. We’re going down to the county seat to fill some peckerwood possums with buckshot. Bring yer bullwhip, and tell Granny to load both barrels.
    Wish I had one of them automatic weapons that NRA feller been trying to sell me. Here tell you can shoot off a burst a bullets into the underbrush kill evry skunk in the county.
    I guess I shoulda signed that doggone piece a paper.
    Mebbe, we’d be livin it up in Beverly Hills where I hear tell there’s a banker name a Mista Drysdale who would put our oil proceeds in sumpin called (screws up his face and scratches his head) … credit default swaps on securitized mortgages.
    On t’other hand, mebbe we’re better off mucking pig filth out of the sty then doin business with pig filth vermin.

  723. Clampett thesea days, circa now:
    Ellie, someone done stole the oil clear out from under us. We been fracked by skunks.
    That outatown jasper feller wearing the fancy britches who was outchere last Spring said if I didn’t sign that piece of paper, why, his, what did he call them, “clients” from Texas, varmints more like, would just get under us anyhow all horizontal-like and siphon that oil away and they is nothin we can do about it.
    Granny says the spring water tastes like sommin dropped the dead body of a filthy, rotting pig filth republican in the aquifer.
    Tell Jethro to bring the truck ’round front. We’re going down to the county seat to fill some peckerwood possums with buckshot. Bring yer bullwhip, and tell Granny to load both barrels.
    Wish I had one of them automatic weapons that NRA feller been trying to sell me. Here tell you can shoot off a burst a bullets into the underbrush kill evry skunk in the county.
    I guess I shoulda signed that doggone piece a paper.
    Mebbe, we’d be livin it up in Beverly Hills where I hear tell there’s a banker name a Mista Drysdale who would put our oil proceeds in sumpin called (screws up his face and scratches his head) … credit default swaps on securitized mortgages.
    On t’other hand, mebbe we’re better off mucking pig filth out of the sty then doin business with pig filth vermin.

  724. Fracking is here to stay.
    Money, don’t ya know. All else is nothing.
    Unless the price of oil drops somewheres under $50 a barrel.
    Then you’ll see those patriotic drillers act just like OPEC and limit their production because all them fancy words bout helping the American consumer with low fuel prices will go by the wayside. Cartel-like, I’d say.
    I was up in Williston, North Dakota couple of months just to get a gander of what an oil-boom town with more money then they spend looks like. Every single road torn up with construction.
    Hope they get it put back together before the drilling cut back and the money dries up.
    The oil money is good while you have it, but when the drillers pack up and leave town in a hurry, they don’t take the prostitutes with them.

  725. Fracking is here to stay.
    Money, don’t ya know. All else is nothing.
    Unless the price of oil drops somewheres under $50 a barrel.
    Then you’ll see those patriotic drillers act just like OPEC and limit their production because all them fancy words bout helping the American consumer with low fuel prices will go by the wayside. Cartel-like, I’d say.
    I was up in Williston, North Dakota couple of months just to get a gander of what an oil-boom town with more money then they spend looks like. Every single road torn up with construction.
    Hope they get it put back together before the drilling cut back and the money dries up.
    The oil money is good while you have it, but when the drillers pack up and leave town in a hurry, they don’t take the prostitutes with them.

  726. Fracking is here to stay.
    Money, don’t ya know. All else is nothing.
    Unless the price of oil drops somewheres under $50 a barrel.
    Then you’ll see those patriotic drillers act just like OPEC and limit their production because all them fancy words bout helping the American consumer with low fuel prices will go by the wayside. Cartel-like, I’d say.
    I was up in Williston, North Dakota couple of months just to get a gander of what an oil-boom town with more money then they spend looks like. Every single road torn up with construction.
    Hope they get it put back together before the drilling cut back and the money dries up.
    The oil money is good while you have it, but when the drillers pack up and leave town in a hurry, they don’t take the prostitutes with them.

  730. I did not know where to put this comment, so I picked a political post. At perhaps the most important time for the ACA, the Gruber tapes calling the American public stupid appears. Duh, there is nothing new there, we all knew that was the administrations belief. It is interesting to hear someone say it, multiple times.
    More important, is the end of this article from the Christian Science Monitor:

    Plus, there’s a new Supreme Court case that threatens the ACA structure. The nation’s high court has agreed to consider whether the bill’s wording limits insurance subsidies to states that have established their own health exchanges.
    The Obama administration argues that it’s obvious the legislation intended to provide such subsidies to all states, whether it’s the state or federal government that’s running their insurance exchange marketplace. However, one of the ACA’s designers has actually argued the opposite in public, saying at a 2012 conference that “if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.”
    Ten points for Gryffindor if you guessed that Jonathan Gruber was the person in question. Given the high stakes in the latest legal challenge to Obamacare, the White House might wish that he spends the next few months avoiding academic conferences and video cameras of all kinds.

  731. I did not know where to put this comment, so I picked a political post. At perhaps the most important time for the ACA, the Gruber tapes calling the American public stupid appears. Duh, there is nothing new there, we all knew that was the administrations belief. It is interesting to hear someone say it, multiple times.
    More important, is the end of this article from the Christian Science Monitor:

    Plus, there’s a new Supreme Court case that threatens the ACA structure. The nation’s high court has agreed to consider whether the bill’s wording limits insurance subsidies to states that have established their own health exchanges.
    The Obama administration argues that it’s obvious the legislation intended to provide such subsidies to all states, whether it’s the state or federal government that’s running their insurance exchange marketplace. However, one of the ACA’s designers has actually argued the opposite in public, saying at a 2012 conference that “if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.”
    Ten points for Gryffindor if you guessed that Jonathan Gruber was the person in question. Given the high stakes in the latest legal challenge to Obamacare, the White House might wish that he spends the next few months avoiding academic conferences and video cameras of all kinds.

  732. I did not know where to put this comment, so I picked a political post. At perhaps the most important time for the ACA, the Gruber tapes calling the American public stupid appears. Duh, there is nothing new there, we all knew that was the administrations belief. It is interesting to hear someone say it, multiple times.
    More important, is the end of this article from the Christian Science Monitor:

    Plus, there’s a new Supreme Court case that threatens the ACA structure. The nation’s high court has agreed to consider whether the bill’s wording limits insurance subsidies to states that have established their own health exchanges.
    The Obama administration argues that it’s obvious the legislation intended to provide such subsidies to all states, whether it’s the state or federal government that’s running their insurance exchange marketplace. However, one of the ACA’s designers has actually argued the opposite in public, saying at a 2012 conference that “if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.”
    Ten points for Gryffindor if you guessed that Jonathan Gruber was the person in question. Given the high stakes in the latest legal challenge to Obamacare, the White House might wish that he spends the next few months avoiding academic conferences and video cameras of all kinds.

  733. Duh, there is nothing new there, we all knew that was the administrations belief.
    Gruber was never part of the administration. he was an outside adviser.
    he did not write the law. his statements do not affect the law. his comments are utterly irrelevant to anything except the GOP’s latest manufactured outrage.

  734. Duh, there is nothing new there, we all knew that was the administrations belief.
    Gruber was never part of the administration. he was an outside adviser.
    he did not write the law. his statements do not affect the law. his comments are utterly irrelevant to anything except the GOP’s latest manufactured outrage.

  735. Duh, there is nothing new there, we all knew that was the administrations belief.
    Gruber was never part of the administration. he was an outside adviser.
    he did not write the law. his statements do not affect the law. his comments are utterly irrelevant to anything except the GOP’s latest manufactured outrage.

  736. tofc, I often agree with the concept of a manufactured outrage, on both sides. This however, is a manufactured outrage akin to the Romney tape being a manufactured outrage. Gruber was paid 400k by the administration to help write the law that was passed. That makes him a key part of the administration on exactly the topic at hand.
    This:

    he did not write the law. his statements do not affect the law. his comments are utterly irrelevant to anything except the GOP’s latest manufactured outrage.

    is all spin. and a prayer.

  737. tofc, I often agree with the concept of a manufactured outrage, on both sides. This however, is a manufactured outrage akin to the Romney tape being a manufactured outrage. Gruber was paid 400k by the administration to help write the law that was passed. That makes him a key part of the administration on exactly the topic at hand.
    This:

    he did not write the law. his statements do not affect the law. his comments are utterly irrelevant to anything except the GOP’s latest manufactured outrage.

    is all spin. and a prayer.

  738. tofc, I often agree with the concept of a manufactured outrage, on both sides. This however, is a manufactured outrage akin to the Romney tape being a manufactured outrage. Gruber was paid 400k by the administration to help write the law that was passed. That makes him a key part of the administration on exactly the topic at hand.
    This:

    he did not write the law. his statements do not affect the law. his comments are utterly irrelevant to anything except the GOP’s latest manufactured outrage.

    is all spin. and a prayer.

  739. I don’t understand why you have a problem with stupid people having affordable access to healthcare?
    “Duh, there is nothing new there, we all knew that was the administrations belief.”
    Hmmm, kemosabe. You purchased the product despite “all” of you “knowing” such a thing.
    I don’t believe stupidity should be counted against you as a pre-existing condition for medical insurance purchases.
    Conservatives hold it as a central tenet that collective decision-making is by it’s very nature conducive to mass stupidity.
    Why are American voters, in their collective action, exempt from this, even the ones dumb enough to vote against Obamacare and yet intelligent enough to make use of its services, inadequate as they may be from a cost basis (high deductibles and such) which, by the way, said inadequacies were included into the law as a compromise with stupid people at the Heritage Foundation and in Governor Romney’s office when he was in Massachusetts, who believe that if you charge people enough upfront, they will be incentivized to delay seeing about that lump under their arm and that will limit utilization of the healthcare infrastructure (how many times were we told by dumbass conservatives through the years that stupid Americans over-utilize healthcare because their insurance benefits are too generous?) which they “all” “know” is what is driving up costs for the rest of us.
    Patient: It hurts right here when I’m being stupid.
    Doctor: Then stop doing that.

  740. I don’t understand why you have a problem with stupid people having affordable access to healthcare?
    “Duh, there is nothing new there, we all knew that was the administrations belief.”
    Hmmm, kemosabe. You purchased the product despite “all” of you “knowing” such a thing.
    I don’t believe stupidity should be counted against you as a pre-existing condition for medical insurance purchases.
    Conservatives hold it as a central tenet that collective decision-making is by it’s very nature conducive to mass stupidity.
    Why are American voters, in their collective action, exempt from this, even the ones dumb enough to vote against Obamacare and yet intelligent enough to make use of its services, inadequate as they may be from a cost basis (high deductibles and such) which, by the way, said inadequacies were included into the law as a compromise with stupid people at the Heritage Foundation and in Governor Romney’s office when he was in Massachusetts, who believe that if you charge people enough upfront, they will be incentivized to delay seeing about that lump under their arm and that will limit utilization of the healthcare infrastructure (how many times were we told by dumbass conservatives through the years that stupid Americans over-utilize healthcare because their insurance benefits are too generous?) which they “all” “know” is what is driving up costs for the rest of us.
    Patient: It hurts right here when I’m being stupid.
    Doctor: Then stop doing that.

  741. I don’t understand why you have a problem with stupid people having affordable access to healthcare?
    “Duh, there is nothing new there, we all knew that was the administrations belief.”
    Hmmm, kemosabe. You purchased the product despite “all” of you “knowing” such a thing.
    I don’t believe stupidity should be counted against you as a pre-existing condition for medical insurance purchases.
    Conservatives hold it as a central tenet that collective decision-making is by it’s very nature conducive to mass stupidity.
    Why are American voters, in their collective action, exempt from this, even the ones dumb enough to vote against Obamacare and yet intelligent enough to make use of its services, inadequate as they may be from a cost basis (high deductibles and such) which, by the way, said inadequacies were included into the law as a compromise with stupid people at the Heritage Foundation and in Governor Romney’s office when he was in Massachusetts, who believe that if you charge people enough upfront, they will be incentivized to delay seeing about that lump under their arm and that will limit utilization of the healthcare infrastructure (how many times were we told by dumbass conservatives through the years that stupid Americans over-utilize healthcare because their insurance benefits are too generous?) which they “all” “know” is what is driving up costs for the rest of us.
    Patient: It hurts right here when I’m being stupid.
    Doctor: Then stop doing that.

  742. Tonto, run into that burning building and let me know if there is a manufactured outrage in there, don’t worry, you have plenty of health care coverage, just make sure its 10k worth of damage or, of course, it wont pay.

  743. Tonto, run into that burning building and let me know if there is a manufactured outrage in there, don’t worry, you have plenty of health care coverage, just make sure its 10k worth of damage or, of course, it wont pay.

  744. Tonto, run into that burning building and let me know if there is a manufactured outrage in there, don’t worry, you have plenty of health care coverage, just make sure its 10k worth of damage or, of course, it wont pay.

  745. My guess is that the SCOTUS are going to gut the ACA when they rule on Halbig or King or whatever the name of the case is.
    IMO Gruber is correct that the law was deliberately crafted to not present the mandate as a tax.
    I don’t know if there was a cynical reliance on the stupidity of the American people to not figure that out, or not. IMO a simple pragmatic political calculation that if you call it a tax, it fails, is sufficient to explain it.
    Gruber may consider the American people at large to be stupid, but that would not be all that unusual for an MIT prof.
    My basic opinion about all of this is that the ACA is going to be neutered, one way of the other, because a really huge number of people really, really, really don’t want it.
    They don’t care if it’s to their benefit, they don’t care if it will help them or people they know, they don’t care if it will improve their lives.
    They just don’t want it. Because big government.
    This is where I find myself persuaded by Brett’s calls for subsidiarity.
    Why should we spend all of this time, and money, and effort, to try to make something useful happen for people *when they don’t want it*?
    I live in MA, we had the equivalent of O-Care already, it was very useful, we like it.
    If you live somewhere else, and you don’t want it, screw it. Have it your way.
    I’m not saying this because I don’t wish folks all over the rest of the country well. I’m saying it because, basically, it just seems like an exercise in leading a horse to water.
    To me, anyway.
    At some point, if we head down the path to devolving stuff like this to local governments, we’ll end up in a place where it no longer makes sense to be one country.
    If that’s where we end up, so be it. I’m tired of arguing about stuff like this.
    This is usually where somebody chimes in to say that the result of all of that is that the quality of life in someplace or other that is not MA is going to be materially worse.
    I have no idea what to say about that. I do not have the capacity to change people’s minds about things like this. It appears to be something that goes a hell of a lot deeper than my personal pay grade equips me to deal with.
    In many ways, I absolutely share Gruber’s opinion that the American population is, by and large, dumber than a box of rocks.
    Isn’t the evidence ample, on that count?
    As above, it’s beyond my power to make even the tiniest dent in that problem.

  746. My guess is that the SCOTUS are going to gut the ACA when they rule on Halbig or King or whatever the name of the case is.
    IMO Gruber is correct that the law was deliberately crafted to not present the mandate as a tax.
    I don’t know if there was a cynical reliance on the stupidity of the American people to not figure that out, or not. IMO a simple pragmatic political calculation that if you call it a tax, it fails, is sufficient to explain it.
    Gruber may consider the American people at large to be stupid, but that would not be all that unusual for an MIT prof.
    My basic opinion about all of this is that the ACA is going to be neutered, one way of the other, because a really huge number of people really, really, really don’t want it.
    They don’t care if it’s to their benefit, they don’t care if it will help them or people they know, they don’t care if it will improve their lives.
    They just don’t want it. Because big government.
    This is where I find myself persuaded by Brett’s calls for subsidiarity.
    Why should we spend all of this time, and money, and effort, to try to make something useful happen for people *when they don’t want it*?
    I live in MA, we had the equivalent of O-Care already, it was very useful, we like it.
    If you live somewhere else, and you don’t want it, screw it. Have it your way.
    I’m not saying this because I don’t wish folks all over the rest of the country well. I’m saying it because, basically, it just seems like an exercise in leading a horse to water.
    To me, anyway.
    At some point, if we head down the path to devolving stuff like this to local governments, we’ll end up in a place where it no longer makes sense to be one country.
    If that’s where we end up, so be it. I’m tired of arguing about stuff like this.
    This is usually where somebody chimes in to say that the result of all of that is that the quality of life in someplace or other that is not MA is going to be materially worse.
    I have no idea what to say about that. I do not have the capacity to change people’s minds about things like this. It appears to be something that goes a hell of a lot deeper than my personal pay grade equips me to deal with.
    In many ways, I absolutely share Gruber’s opinion that the American population is, by and large, dumber than a box of rocks.
    Isn’t the evidence ample, on that count?
    As above, it’s beyond my power to make even the tiniest dent in that problem.

  747. My guess is that the SCOTUS are going to gut the ACA when they rule on Halbig or King or whatever the name of the case is.
    IMO Gruber is correct that the law was deliberately crafted to not present the mandate as a tax.
    I don’t know if there was a cynical reliance on the stupidity of the American people to not figure that out, or not. IMO a simple pragmatic political calculation that if you call it a tax, it fails, is sufficient to explain it.
    Gruber may consider the American people at large to be stupid, but that would not be all that unusual for an MIT prof.
    My basic opinion about all of this is that the ACA is going to be neutered, one way of the other, because a really huge number of people really, really, really don’t want it.
    They don’t care if it’s to their benefit, they don’t care if it will help them or people they know, they don’t care if it will improve their lives.
    They just don’t want it. Because big government.
    This is where I find myself persuaded by Brett’s calls for subsidiarity.
    Why should we spend all of this time, and money, and effort, to try to make something useful happen for people *when they don’t want it*?
    I live in MA, we had the equivalent of O-Care already, it was very useful, we like it.
    If you live somewhere else, and you don’t want it, screw it. Have it your way.
    I’m not saying this because I don’t wish folks all over the rest of the country well. I’m saying it because, basically, it just seems like an exercise in leading a horse to water.
    To me, anyway.
    At some point, if we head down the path to devolving stuff like this to local governments, we’ll end up in a place where it no longer makes sense to be one country.
    If that’s where we end up, so be it. I’m tired of arguing about stuff like this.
    This is usually where somebody chimes in to say that the result of all of that is that the quality of life in someplace or other that is not MA is going to be materially worse.
    I have no idea what to say about that. I do not have the capacity to change people’s minds about things like this. It appears to be something that goes a hell of a lot deeper than my personal pay grade equips me to deal with.
    In many ways, I absolutely share Gruber’s opinion that the American population is, by and large, dumber than a box of rocks.
    Isn’t the evidence ample, on that count?
    As above, it’s beyond my power to make even the tiniest dent in that problem.

  748. BTW, because I purchased the alternative that was made available doesn’t preclude me from thinking that the ACA sucks. This whole argument that somehow Republicans/conservatives/whoever are somehow inconsistent because w ebuy healthcare, sign up for Medicare, sign up for SS is stupid and tiresome. For Gods sake, ya’ll make me pay for it out of every paycheck, give me the 300k+ I’ve put in SS over my career and I wont sign up for it, I’ll never get that much out of it, so shut up about us using the solutions that have been forced on us.

  749. BTW, because I purchased the alternative that was made available doesn’t preclude me from thinking that the ACA sucks. This whole argument that somehow Republicans/conservatives/whoever are somehow inconsistent because w ebuy healthcare, sign up for Medicare, sign up for SS is stupid and tiresome. For Gods sake, ya’ll make me pay for it out of every paycheck, give me the 300k+ I’ve put in SS over my career and I wont sign up for it, I’ll never get that much out of it, so shut up about us using the solutions that have been forced on us.

  750. BTW, because I purchased the alternative that was made available doesn’t preclude me from thinking that the ACA sucks. This whole argument that somehow Republicans/conservatives/whoever are somehow inconsistent because w ebuy healthcare, sign up for Medicare, sign up for SS is stupid and tiresome. For Gods sake, ya’ll make me pay for it out of every paycheck, give me the 300k+ I’ve put in SS over my career and I wont sign up for it, I’ll never get that much out of it, so shut up about us using the solutions that have been forced on us.

  751. give me the 300k+ I’ve put in SS over my career
    You’re probably not gonna see that, Marty.
    You and I are of approximately the same age, which means that we’ve both been paying into SS at a rate higher than the operating cost of the program for about 30 years.
    The reason we did that is to build up a surplus to fund the boomer retirement bulge.
    Most of that surplus was lent to the feds to fund current operations. You know, sovereign debt of the US, one of the very first things we ever decided, as a nation, to maintain as an inviolable priority.
    The idea being that, when the boomers started to retire and current receipts were no longer enough to fund SS outflow, our fellow citizens would pay us back.
    So we wouldn’t have to live on cat food and sleep under a bridge somewhere.
    Only problem is, now folks don’t want to pay it back.
    So enjoy yourself today, while you can, because if you manage to live long enough for it to matter whether we all get paid back or not, you’re probably gonna be SOL.

  752. give me the 300k+ I’ve put in SS over my career
    You’re probably not gonna see that, Marty.
    You and I are of approximately the same age, which means that we’ve both been paying into SS at a rate higher than the operating cost of the program for about 30 years.
    The reason we did that is to build up a surplus to fund the boomer retirement bulge.
    Most of that surplus was lent to the feds to fund current operations. You know, sovereign debt of the US, one of the very first things we ever decided, as a nation, to maintain as an inviolable priority.
    The idea being that, when the boomers started to retire and current receipts were no longer enough to fund SS outflow, our fellow citizens would pay us back.
    So we wouldn’t have to live on cat food and sleep under a bridge somewhere.
    Only problem is, now folks don’t want to pay it back.
    So enjoy yourself today, while you can, because if you manage to live long enough for it to matter whether we all get paid back or not, you’re probably gonna be SOL.

  753. give me the 300k+ I’ve put in SS over my career
    You’re probably not gonna see that, Marty.
    You and I are of approximately the same age, which means that we’ve both been paying into SS at a rate higher than the operating cost of the program for about 30 years.
    The reason we did that is to build up a surplus to fund the boomer retirement bulge.
    Most of that surplus was lent to the feds to fund current operations. You know, sovereign debt of the US, one of the very first things we ever decided, as a nation, to maintain as an inviolable priority.
    The idea being that, when the boomers started to retire and current receipts were no longer enough to fund SS outflow, our fellow citizens would pay us back.
    So we wouldn’t have to live on cat food and sleep under a bridge somewhere.
    Only problem is, now folks don’t want to pay it back.
    So enjoy yourself today, while you can, because if you manage to live long enough for it to matter whether we all get paid back or not, you’re probably gonna be SOL.

  754. Gruber may consider the American people at large to be stupid, but that would not be all that unusual for an MIT prof.
    or a Senior Lecturer at the Chicago School of Law

  755. Gruber may consider the American people at large to be stupid, but that would not be all that unusual for an MIT prof.
    or a Senior Lecturer at the Chicago School of Law

  756. Gruber may consider the American people at large to be stupid, but that would not be all that unusual for an MIT prof.
    or a Senior Lecturer at the Chicago School of Law

  757. Mmmm, I agree, kemodobe, deductibles are way too high in most of the low premium Obamacare plans, not to mention elsewhere.
    It was going to go that way anyhoo, believe me.
    You try unsuccessfully to trick me into entering a burning building on your behalf, as usual, but even though my deductibles are relatively low, the cost in burned flesh seems painful to this cautious red man.
    Before we welcomed, to our great regret, your people to our land, life was easier. Our elders were more than happy to accept the Medicare of our Great Ancestors in the Sky, which consisted of a platform made of branches set upon a hillside where they might recline to observe the vultures wheeling overhead who would feast upon their tasty bits as an inexpensive darkness fell.
    Now, with your ways brought from a land I do not recognize, you keep us alive interminably so that the vultures might pick us clean before we go to frolic in the meadows of our ancestors, my friend.
    I am heartened to learn that you believe Obamacare too stingy for we may find agreement there before the eagle flies into the sun.

  758. Mmmm, I agree, kemodobe, deductibles are way too high in most of the low premium Obamacare plans, not to mention elsewhere.
    It was going to go that way anyhoo, believe me.
    You try unsuccessfully to trick me into entering a burning building on your behalf, as usual, but even though my deductibles are relatively low, the cost in burned flesh seems painful to this cautious red man.
    Before we welcomed, to our great regret, your people to our land, life was easier. Our elders were more than happy to accept the Medicare of our Great Ancestors in the Sky, which consisted of a platform made of branches set upon a hillside where they might recline to observe the vultures wheeling overhead who would feast upon their tasty bits as an inexpensive darkness fell.
    Now, with your ways brought from a land I do not recognize, you keep us alive interminably so that the vultures might pick us clean before we go to frolic in the meadows of our ancestors, my friend.
    I am heartened to learn that you believe Obamacare too stingy for we may find agreement there before the eagle flies into the sun.

  759. Mmmm, I agree, kemodobe, deductibles are way too high in most of the low premium Obamacare plans, not to mention elsewhere.
    It was going to go that way anyhoo, believe me.
    You try unsuccessfully to trick me into entering a burning building on your behalf, as usual, but even though my deductibles are relatively low, the cost in burned flesh seems painful to this cautious red man.
    Before we welcomed, to our great regret, your people to our land, life was easier. Our elders were more than happy to accept the Medicare of our Great Ancestors in the Sky, which consisted of a platform made of branches set upon a hillside where they might recline to observe the vultures wheeling overhead who would feast upon their tasty bits as an inexpensive darkness fell.
    Now, with your ways brought from a land I do not recognize, you keep us alive interminably so that the vultures might pick us clean before we go to frolic in the meadows of our ancestors, my friend.
    I am heartened to learn that you believe Obamacare too stingy for we may find agreement there before the eagle flies into the sun.

  760. is all spin. and a prayer.
    Gruber is absolutely irrelevant.
    that you’ve fallen for the GOP noise machine’s gambit to turn him into the next Ward Churchill is kindof sad, but also irrelevant. your opinion of Gruber has as much bearing on reality as does Gruber’s opinion of the ACA.
    and, i don’t pray.

  761. is all spin. and a prayer.
    Gruber is absolutely irrelevant.
    that you’ve fallen for the GOP noise machine’s gambit to turn him into the next Ward Churchill is kindof sad, but also irrelevant. your opinion of Gruber has as much bearing on reality as does Gruber’s opinion of the ACA.
    and, i don’t pray.

  762. is all spin. and a prayer.
    Gruber is absolutely irrelevant.
    that you’ve fallen for the GOP noise machine’s gambit to turn him into the next Ward Churchill is kindof sad, but also irrelevant. your opinion of Gruber has as much bearing on reality as does Gruber’s opinion of the ACA.
    and, i don’t pray.

  763. “I am heartened to learn that you believe Obamacare too stingy for we may find agreement there before the eagle flies into the sun.”
    I wonder if anyone remembers my views on this at the time…..

  764. “I am heartened to learn that you believe Obamacare too stingy for we may find agreement there before the eagle flies into the sun.”
    I wonder if anyone remembers my views on this at the time…..

  765. “I am heartened to learn that you believe Obamacare too stingy for we may find agreement there before the eagle flies into the sun.”
    I wonder if anyone remembers my views on this at the time…..

  766. It’s interesting to speculate on what the impact will be if the Court rules against the government on this case.
    All the (mostly blue) states which have set up their own exchanges will see no impact. But all the (mostly red) states which did not will suddenly have a bunch of people who had health insurance this year, but are losing it (or at least losing the subsidy) once the ruling comes down.
    Maybe, they will somehow turn this into outrage against the Democrats. But it seems at least as likely that those who lose insurance will be pounding on state capitol doors, demanding to know why their benefits have been taken away.
    If the GOP has managed to repeal the ACA successfully, it will be a moot point. But if they have not, they could be looking at a significant amount of voter backlash. Not to mention the backlash from the health insurance and hospital industries. But I suppose that is a small price to pay for ideological purity.

  767. It’s interesting to speculate on what the impact will be if the Court rules against the government on this case.
    All the (mostly blue) states which have set up their own exchanges will see no impact. But all the (mostly red) states which did not will suddenly have a bunch of people who had health insurance this year, but are losing it (or at least losing the subsidy) once the ruling comes down.
    Maybe, they will somehow turn this into outrage against the Democrats. But it seems at least as likely that those who lose insurance will be pounding on state capitol doors, demanding to know why their benefits have been taken away.
    If the GOP has managed to repeal the ACA successfully, it will be a moot point. But if they have not, they could be looking at a significant amount of voter backlash. Not to mention the backlash from the health insurance and hospital industries. But I suppose that is a small price to pay for ideological purity.

  768. It’s interesting to speculate on what the impact will be if the Court rules against the government on this case.
    All the (mostly blue) states which have set up their own exchanges will see no impact. But all the (mostly red) states which did not will suddenly have a bunch of people who had health insurance this year, but are losing it (or at least losing the subsidy) once the ruling comes down.
    Maybe, they will somehow turn this into outrage against the Democrats. But it seems at least as likely that those who lose insurance will be pounding on state capitol doors, demanding to know why their benefits have been taken away.
    If the GOP has managed to repeal the ACA successfully, it will be a moot point. But if they have not, they could be looking at a significant amount of voter backlash. Not to mention the backlash from the health insurance and hospital industries. But I suppose that is a small price to pay for ideological purity.

  775. if they rule against the PPACA, it will confirm beyond question that the “conservative” members of the court are simply unelected Republicans. there’s no way they can accept the plaintiffs’ argument without contradicting themselves from the last time they looked at the PPACA.

  776. if they rule against the PPACA, it will confirm beyond question that the “conservative” members of the court are simply unelected Republicans. there’s no way they can accept the plaintiffs’ argument without contradicting themselves from the last time they looked at the PPACA.

  777. if they rule against the PPACA, it will confirm beyond question that the “conservative” members of the court are simply unelected Republicans. there’s no way they can accept the plaintiffs’ argument without contradicting themselves from the last time they looked at the PPACA.

  778. I don’t even remember my views on this for they change as the seasons turn.
    Come to my wigwam, my friend, and refresh my memory of yours at the time.
    My many wives shall swab the Ebola from your brow and not charge you an arm and a leg, because then you would need to hop into town and seek expensive rehabilitative care from among the small print of the white devils.

  779. I don’t even remember my views on this for they change as the seasons turn.
    Come to my wigwam, my friend, and refresh my memory of yours at the time.
    My many wives shall swab the Ebola from your brow and not charge you an arm and a leg, because then you would need to hop into town and seek expensive rehabilitative care from among the small print of the white devils.

  780. I don’t even remember my views on this for they change as the seasons turn.
    Come to my wigwam, my friend, and refresh my memory of yours at the time.
    My many wives shall swab the Ebola from your brow and not charge you an arm and a leg, because then you would need to hop into town and seek expensive rehabilitative care from among the small print of the white devils.

  781. Yes, my liberal blood brother, Ted Turner, has replenished the herd somewhat, only to be set upon by the Texas Rangers who savage his former wives and place their muddy boots upon the damask of his restaurants while they feast on the antelope haunch cutlets in hypocrisy sauce with a side of gnudi.
    It was foretold by a witch doctor in the 1400’s who looked into the eyes of the Great Father Columbus and saw little but the flash of gold coins like a slot machine hitting the jackpot.

  782. Yes, my liberal blood brother, Ted Turner, has replenished the herd somewhat, only to be set upon by the Texas Rangers who savage his former wives and place their muddy boots upon the damask of his restaurants while they feast on the antelope haunch cutlets in hypocrisy sauce with a side of gnudi.
    It was foretold by a witch doctor in the 1400’s who looked into the eyes of the Great Father Columbus and saw little but the flash of gold coins like a slot machine hitting the jackpot.

  783. Yes, my liberal blood brother, Ted Turner, has replenished the herd somewhat, only to be set upon by the Texas Rangers who savage his former wives and place their muddy boots upon the damask of his restaurants while they feast on the antelope haunch cutlets in hypocrisy sauce with a side of gnudi.
    It was foretold by a witch doctor in the 1400’s who looked into the eyes of the Great Father Columbus and saw little but the flash of gold coins like a slot machine hitting the jackpot.

Comments are closed.