by Ugh
On Tuesday we have the oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges regarding whether states can constitutionally discriminate on the basis of sex when it comes to granting certain contract rights and obligations to consenting adults. Some call this "same-sex marriage."
As usual, SCOTUSblog will be live blogging here beginning at 10:45am Eastern. I look forward to seeing whether Scalia explodes like that guy in Big Trouble in Little China (which is awesome, BTW (the movie, not Scalia exploding)).
I maintain my prediction of a 6-3 vote in favor of those attempting to get married, with a reasoning breakdown of 5 (Kennedy + 4), Roberts (concurring in the result but writing separately in an amazing tap dance of "I'm not really doing this even though it looks like I am" legal reasoning), and a "fiery" dissent (from the usual suspects, written by the aforementioned Scalia).
Unfortunately we will likely have to wait until the last day of the term to get the opinions. In the meantime, it would be irresponsible not to speculate!
UPDATE: Feel free to talk about Baltimore too.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The good guys (and gals) are winning because we are right. If the Supreme Court rejects the case, the legislature will fix it.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The good guys (and gals) are winning because we are right. If the Supreme Court rejects the case, the legislature will fix it.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The good guys (and gals) are winning because we are right. If the Supreme Court rejects the case, the legislature will fix it.
Hi von! Come on back anytime.
Hi von! Come on back anytime.
Hi von! Come on back anytime.
If Kennedy votes for gay marriage, I expect Roberts will do as Ugh suggests. The only question in my mind is whether Alito will go the same way.
On the other hand, Kennedy doesn’t, then Roberts will write an even more amazing tapdance concurring in finding against gay marriage. It will be the deciding vote, and he would absolutely hate having to do that. So I would speculate that his opinion in this circumstance would be so convoluted that nobody else will be able to make any sense of it whatever.
If Kennedy votes for gay marriage, I expect Roberts will do as Ugh suggests. The only question in my mind is whether Alito will go the same way.
On the other hand, Kennedy doesn’t, then Roberts will write an even more amazing tapdance concurring in finding against gay marriage. It will be the deciding vote, and he would absolutely hate having to do that. So I would speculate that his opinion in this circumstance would be so convoluted that nobody else will be able to make any sense of it whatever.
If Kennedy votes for gay marriage, I expect Roberts will do as Ugh suggests. The only question in my mind is whether Alito will go the same way.
On the other hand, Kennedy doesn’t, then Roberts will write an even more amazing tapdance concurring in finding against gay marriage. It will be the deciding vote, and he would absolutely hate having to do that. So I would speculate that his opinion in this circumstance would be so convoluted that nobody else will be able to make any sense of it whatever.
Open thread?
If anyone’s interested in reading thoughts about what’s been going on in Baltimore, David Simon, creator of The Wire (in case anyone somehow didn’t know), has a blog. His post is short, but the comments thread is where the real action is.
Open thread?
If anyone’s interested in reading thoughts about what’s been going on in Baltimore, David Simon, creator of The Wire (in case anyone somehow didn’t know), has a blog. His post is short, but the comments thread is where the real action is.
Open thread?
If anyone’s interested in reading thoughts about what’s been going on in Baltimore, David Simon, creator of The Wire (in case anyone somehow didn’t know), has a blog. His post is short, but the comments thread is where the real action is.
I’d be shocked if Kennedy voted against, as I think most commentators would be. I can see Roberts voting against based on the questions presented. For example, the first one is “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?”
Well, if we’re interested in being limited to that hyper specific question I would say the answer is no. But, that’s really not the issue of course. The question presented should least be “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex, when it already issues marriage licenses to people of the opposite sex?” For that question, I would say the answer is yes. But technically that’s not the question “presented,” so Roberts could write an opinion saying that the 14th Amendment doesn’t require this, but it doesn’t require states to issue licenses to opposite sex couples either.
The second question is “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?” Perhaps that’s a privileges and immunities clause issue, but really that answer should be self-evident based on whether states are required by the 14th amendment (or some other provision of the Constitution) to recognize marriages of the opposite sex in the same circumstances. And, AFAIK, that answer has been settled as “yes.”
So, if Roberts wants to put the blinders on and write an opinion about how the 14th amendment does require states to enact laws blessing same-sex marriages he can, but that would be rather short-sighted, perhaps even cowardly.
I’d be shocked if Kennedy voted against, as I think most commentators would be. I can see Roberts voting against based on the questions presented. For example, the first one is “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?”
Well, if we’re interested in being limited to that hyper specific question I would say the answer is no. But, that’s really not the issue of course. The question presented should least be “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex, when it already issues marriage licenses to people of the opposite sex?” For that question, I would say the answer is yes. But technically that’s not the question “presented,” so Roberts could write an opinion saying that the 14th Amendment doesn’t require this, but it doesn’t require states to issue licenses to opposite sex couples either.
The second question is “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?” Perhaps that’s a privileges and immunities clause issue, but really that answer should be self-evident based on whether states are required by the 14th amendment (or some other provision of the Constitution) to recognize marriages of the opposite sex in the same circumstances. And, AFAIK, that answer has been settled as “yes.”
So, if Roberts wants to put the blinders on and write an opinion about how the 14th amendment does require states to enact laws blessing same-sex marriages he can, but that would be rather short-sighted, perhaps even cowardly.
I’d be shocked if Kennedy voted against, as I think most commentators would be. I can see Roberts voting against based on the questions presented. For example, the first one is “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?”
Well, if we’re interested in being limited to that hyper specific question I would say the answer is no. But, that’s really not the issue of course. The question presented should least be “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex, when it already issues marriage licenses to people of the opposite sex?” For that question, I would say the answer is yes. But technically that’s not the question “presented,” so Roberts could write an opinion saying that the 14th Amendment doesn’t require this, but it doesn’t require states to issue licenses to opposite sex couples either.
The second question is “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?” Perhaps that’s a privileges and immunities clause issue, but really that answer should be self-evident based on whether states are required by the 14th amendment (or some other provision of the Constitution) to recognize marriages of the opposite sex in the same circumstances. And, AFAIK, that answer has been settled as “yes.”
So, if Roberts wants to put the blinders on and write an opinion about how the 14th amendment does require states to enact laws blessing same-sex marriages he can, but that would be rather short-sighted, perhaps even cowardly.
TNC has a post on Baltimore too.
TNC has a post on Baltimore too.
TNC has a post on Baltimore too.
TNC is pretty much dead on. As is Scott Greenfield:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2015/04/28/four-fires-burn-in-baltimore/
The fires burning in Baltimore are symptoms of a disease that’s become pervasive in all parts of our society, from the nice law-abiding people who grasp at any excuse to support the police to those whose anger and frustration have manifested in the outrage. Eventually, with sufficient suppression, the fires will be put out, but they will not cure the disease. And the disease will continue to rage, the symptoms will be back, until we deal with the cause of the disease.
But that will require a national admission that we’ve enabled the police to get out of control.
TNC is pretty much dead on. As is Scott Greenfield:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2015/04/28/four-fires-burn-in-baltimore/
The fires burning in Baltimore are symptoms of a disease that’s become pervasive in all parts of our society, from the nice law-abiding people who grasp at any excuse to support the police to those whose anger and frustration have manifested in the outrage. Eventually, with sufficient suppression, the fires will be put out, but they will not cure the disease. And the disease will continue to rage, the symptoms will be back, until we deal with the cause of the disease.
But that will require a national admission that we’ve enabled the police to get out of control.
TNC is pretty much dead on. As is Scott Greenfield:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2015/04/28/four-fires-burn-in-baltimore/
The fires burning in Baltimore are symptoms of a disease that’s become pervasive in all parts of our society, from the nice law-abiding people who grasp at any excuse to support the police to those whose anger and frustration have manifested in the outrage. Eventually, with sufficient suppression, the fires will be put out, but they will not cure the disease. And the disease will continue to rage, the symptoms will be back, until we deal with the cause of the disease.
But that will require a national admission that we’ve enabled the police to get out of control.
Yes. TNC’s post is linked, mentioned and quoted several times in the comments on Simon’s post, enhancing the discussion. At first blush, Simon and TNC seem to be somewhat at odds in what they’re saying, but I think they almost entirely agree once you break it down.
(It’s far better reading than the “animals!” and “shoot them all!” crap I had to see on facebook. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother with that at all. Maybe for Gary Farber?)
Yes. TNC’s post is linked, mentioned and quoted several times in the comments on Simon’s post, enhancing the discussion. At first blush, Simon and TNC seem to be somewhat at odds in what they’re saying, but I think they almost entirely agree once you break it down.
(It’s far better reading than the “animals!” and “shoot them all!” crap I had to see on facebook. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother with that at all. Maybe for Gary Farber?)
Yes. TNC’s post is linked, mentioned and quoted several times in the comments on Simon’s post, enhancing the discussion. At first blush, Simon and TNC seem to be somewhat at odds in what they’re saying, but I think they almost entirely agree once you break it down.
(It’s far better reading than the “animals!” and “shoot them all!” crap I had to see on facebook. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother with that at all. Maybe for Gary Farber?)
Pierce, too:
damn that completely isolated and independent culture.
Pierce, too:
damn that completely isolated and independent culture.
Pierce, too:
damn that completely isolated and independent culture.
What could make people so angry that they would set fire to their own neighborhood?
What could make people so angry that they would set fire to their own neighborhood?
What could make people so angry that they would set fire to their own neighborhood?
What could make people so angry that they would set fire to their own neighborhood?
Not to disagree, and the Sun article is well worth reading, but the phrase ‘their own neighborhood’ kind of sticks for me. Can they really call it their own neighborhood if they are always under the threat of violence?
What could make people so angry that they would set fire to their own neighborhood?
Not to disagree, and the Sun article is well worth reading, but the phrase ‘their own neighborhood’ kind of sticks for me. Can they really call it their own neighborhood if they are always under the threat of violence?
What could make people so angry that they would set fire to their own neighborhood?
Not to disagree, and the Sun article is well worth reading, but the phrase ‘their own neighborhood’ kind of sticks for me. Can they really call it their own neighborhood if they are always under the threat of violence?
What could make people so angry that they would set fire to their own neighborhood?
I don’t get it. Why are you asking this? They’re breaking the law. Just lock them up or, better yet, shoot them.
/end imitation of most of the people who feel the need to post their opinions on facebook
(Sorry, I’m just annoyed….)
What could make people so angry that they would set fire to their own neighborhood?
I don’t get it. Why are you asking this? They’re breaking the law. Just lock them up or, better yet, shoot them.
/end imitation of most of the people who feel the need to post their opinions on facebook
(Sorry, I’m just annoyed….)
What could make people so angry that they would set fire to their own neighborhood?
I don’t get it. Why are you asking this? They’re breaking the law. Just lock them up or, better yet, shoot them.
/end imitation of most of the people who feel the need to post their opinions on facebook
(Sorry, I’m just annoyed….)
Here is a WaPo story on the oral argument today. I’m just not that impressed with either the liberal or conservative justices for the most part (at least as reported).
E.g., “But Bonauto faced repeated questions about the historical nature of marriage as a bond between genders – which Justice Stephen G. Breyer described as ‘the law everywhere for thousands of years.’
‘Suddenly,’ Breyer said, ‘you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states to change [this].'”
I suppose he can think of this that way, but it’s really irrelevant to the legal question, I would say.
Similarly, “Justice Antonin Scalia said that if the decisions on marriage continue to be made democratically by the states, those states could make religious accommodations that would not be possible if there was a decision that it same-sex marriage was a constitutional right.”
WTF does that have to do anything.
Roberts, OTOH, appears to make my point (so he must be right!), “Roberts asked a question that neither side had pressed. If a woman wants to marry a man, she can. If a man wants to marry a man, he can’t. Why isn’t that sex discrimination, he wondered.”
Run with it Johnny boy!
Here is a WaPo story on the oral argument today. I’m just not that impressed with either the liberal or conservative justices for the most part (at least as reported).
E.g., “But Bonauto faced repeated questions about the historical nature of marriage as a bond between genders – which Justice Stephen G. Breyer described as ‘the law everywhere for thousands of years.’
‘Suddenly,’ Breyer said, ‘you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states to change [this].'”
I suppose he can think of this that way, but it’s really irrelevant to the legal question, I would say.
Similarly, “Justice Antonin Scalia said that if the decisions on marriage continue to be made democratically by the states, those states could make religious accommodations that would not be possible if there was a decision that it same-sex marriage was a constitutional right.”
WTF does that have to do anything.
Roberts, OTOH, appears to make my point (so he must be right!), “Roberts asked a question that neither side had pressed. If a woman wants to marry a man, she can. If a man wants to marry a man, he can’t. Why isn’t that sex discrimination, he wondered.”
Run with it Johnny boy!
Here is a WaPo story on the oral argument today. I’m just not that impressed with either the liberal or conservative justices for the most part (at least as reported).
E.g., “But Bonauto faced repeated questions about the historical nature of marriage as a bond between genders – which Justice Stephen G. Breyer described as ‘the law everywhere for thousands of years.’
‘Suddenly,’ Breyer said, ‘you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states to change [this].'”
I suppose he can think of this that way, but it’s really irrelevant to the legal question, I would say.
Similarly, “Justice Antonin Scalia said that if the decisions on marriage continue to be made democratically by the states, those states could make religious accommodations that would not be possible if there was a decision that it same-sex marriage was a constitutional right.”
WTF does that have to do anything.
Roberts, OTOH, appears to make my point (so he must be right!), “Roberts asked a question that neither side had pressed. If a woman wants to marry a man, she can. If a man wants to marry a man, he can’t. Why isn’t that sex discrimination, he wondered.”
Run with it Johnny boy!
facebook is a terrible place for political discussions. you get to learn half your friends are idiots, half are assholes; and if you’re lucky, those you like the best are smart enough to keep their opinions to themselves.
facebook is a terrible place for political discussions. you get to learn half your friends are idiots, half are assholes; and if you’re lucky, those you like the best are smart enough to keep their opinions to themselves.
facebook is a terrible place for political discussions. you get to learn half your friends are idiots, half are assholes; and if you’re lucky, those you like the best are smart enough to keep their opinions to themselves.
What excuses is he offering, Icarus? Do you have a quote? What exactly are the “white guys who own guns” standing up against, and how does it compare to events in Baltimore leading up to the protests and the riots?
Let’s hear about some more of your observations.
What excuses is he offering, Icarus? Do you have a quote? What exactly are the “white guys who own guns” standing up against, and how does it compare to events in Baltimore leading up to the protests and the riots?
Let’s hear about some more of your observations.
What excuses is he offering, Icarus? Do you have a quote? What exactly are the “white guys who own guns” standing up against, and how does it compare to events in Baltimore leading up to the protests and the riots?
Let’s hear about some more of your observations.
I’m just not that impressed with either the liberal or conservative justices for the most part
I’ve listened to the 1st half and honestly, other then the SG (Verrilli, I think), no arguments seemed to me particularly well thought out. By either counsel or the justices.
I’m just not that impressed with either the liberal or conservative justices for the most part
I’ve listened to the 1st half and honestly, other then the SG (Verrilli, I think), no arguments seemed to me particularly well thought out. By either counsel or the justices.
I’m just not that impressed with either the liberal or conservative justices for the most part
I’ve listened to the 1st half and honestly, other then the SG (Verrilli, I think), no arguments seemed to me particularly well thought out. By either counsel or the justices.
If a woman wants to marry a man, she can. If a man wants to marry a man, he can’t. Why isn’t that sex discrimination, he wondered.
I made this exact argument years ago on another blog I used to frequent, when it still existed. Does that make me Chief Justice material? It would be a lot cooler if it did.
If a woman wants to marry a man, she can. If a man wants to marry a man, he can’t. Why isn’t that sex discrimination, he wondered.
I made this exact argument years ago on another blog I used to frequent, when it still existed. Does that make me Chief Justice material? It would be a lot cooler if it did.
If a woman wants to marry a man, she can. If a man wants to marry a man, he can’t. Why isn’t that sex discrimination, he wondered.
I made this exact argument years ago on another blog I used to frequent, when it still existed. Does that make me Chief Justice material? It would be a lot cooler if it did.
when TNC offers excuses for anti-government violence, if not wholeheartedly supporting it, it’s cool
is something i, for one, never said.
i wish things would’ve stayed peaceful. but they didn’t. and i can understand why they didn’t, while not agreeing with the decision to get violent.
but, i’m just a white guy in a suburban office building, so i don’t expect anyone in Baltimore to give a crap about how i wold’ve handled the situation.
when TNC offers excuses for anti-government violence, if not wholeheartedly supporting it, it’s cool
is something i, for one, never said.
i wish things would’ve stayed peaceful. but they didn’t. and i can understand why they didn’t, while not agreeing with the decision to get violent.
but, i’m just a white guy in a suburban office building, so i don’t expect anyone in Baltimore to give a crap about how i wold’ve handled the situation.
when TNC offers excuses for anti-government violence, if not wholeheartedly supporting it, it’s cool
is something i, for one, never said.
i wish things would’ve stayed peaceful. but they didn’t. and i can understand why they didn’t, while not agreeing with the decision to get violent.
but, i’m just a white guy in a suburban office building, so i don’t expect anyone in Baltimore to give a crap about how i wold’ve handled the situation.
When a bunch of black guys decide to respond to police harassment by open carrying, we get the first national push for gun laws.
Funny, that.
Your comment is like a diamond, Icarus, it has so many facets that we could get lost in it for days.
When a bunch of black guys decide to respond to police harassment by open carrying, we get the first national push for gun laws.
Funny, that.
Your comment is like a diamond, Icarus, it has so many facets that we could get lost in it for days.
When a bunch of black guys decide to respond to police harassment by open carrying, we get the first national push for gun laws.
Funny, that.
Your comment is like a diamond, Icarus, it has so many facets that we could get lost in it for days.
HSH, depends. Can you be counted upon to reliably kiss mega-corporate butt?
If so, YOU TOO could be a Supreme Court justice!
HSH, depends. Can you be counted upon to reliably kiss mega-corporate butt?
If so, YOU TOO could be a Supreme Court justice!
HSH, depends. Can you be counted upon to reliably kiss mega-corporate butt?
If so, YOU TOO could be a Supreme Court justice!
One thing that confuses me about discussions about protester violence in Baltimore (especially on facebook, cleek is so depressingly right) is that a lot of people are assuming that protesters all made a conscious decision to riot. I don’t think that often happens. I think most people go out to protest for the best of reasons, because they’re enraged that 4 cops basically decapitated a guy (seriously, how do you even do that?!) for no reason and will face no punishment.
But the minute you start protesting, you end up hemmed in by police. Things get tense. Maybe some idiot in the protest says or does something stupid to the cops, they react and pretty soon all the protesters think that the cops are gunning for them. Things escalate easily from there. Pretty soon the fight or flight reaction takes over.
I want to be mad at the protesters/rioters, but I’m having trouble. This country was started by people who decided to throw a revolution over having to pay too much for tea and stamps. Those guys are our national heroes. We’re a violent people. And while I don’t approve of the riots, cops-decapitated-this-guy-and-will-face-no-justice is a hell of a better reason than tea-is-too-expensive.
One thing that confuses me about discussions about protester violence in Baltimore (especially on facebook, cleek is so depressingly right) is that a lot of people are assuming that protesters all made a conscious decision to riot. I don’t think that often happens. I think most people go out to protest for the best of reasons, because they’re enraged that 4 cops basically decapitated a guy (seriously, how do you even do that?!) for no reason and will face no punishment.
But the minute you start protesting, you end up hemmed in by police. Things get tense. Maybe some idiot in the protest says or does something stupid to the cops, they react and pretty soon all the protesters think that the cops are gunning for them. Things escalate easily from there. Pretty soon the fight or flight reaction takes over.
I want to be mad at the protesters/rioters, but I’m having trouble. This country was started by people who decided to throw a revolution over having to pay too much for tea and stamps. Those guys are our national heroes. We’re a violent people. And while I don’t approve of the riots, cops-decapitated-this-guy-and-will-face-no-justice is a hell of a better reason than tea-is-too-expensive.
One thing that confuses me about discussions about protester violence in Baltimore (especially on facebook, cleek is so depressingly right) is that a lot of people are assuming that protesters all made a conscious decision to riot. I don’t think that often happens. I think most people go out to protest for the best of reasons, because they’re enraged that 4 cops basically decapitated a guy (seriously, how do you even do that?!) for no reason and will face no punishment.
But the minute you start protesting, you end up hemmed in by police. Things get tense. Maybe some idiot in the protest says or does something stupid to the cops, they react and pretty soon all the protesters think that the cops are gunning for them. Things escalate easily from there. Pretty soon the fight or flight reaction takes over.
I want to be mad at the protesters/rioters, but I’m having trouble. This country was started by people who decided to throw a revolution over having to pay too much for tea and stamps. Those guys are our national heroes. We’re a violent people. And while I don’t approve of the riots, cops-decapitated-this-guy-and-will-face-no-justice is a hell of a better reason than tea-is-too-expensive.
“I don’t get it. Why are you asking this? They’re breaking the law. Just lock them up or, better yet, shoot them.
/end imitation of most of the people who feel the need to post their opinions on facebook”
I have to admit, that is pretty much my opinion of people who set fire to buildings, loot businesses, and beat up innocent bystanders: Enough already, cap their asses.
You want me to listen to your complaints? Setting fire to buildings, and then cutting the firehoses is pretty much the worst possible way to do it. If you’re the sort of person who’d do that, any problems you have with the police I’m going to assume you brought on yourself. And maybe not enough of it, if you’re still on the streets.
They didn’t demonstrate that they had a legitimate grievance. They demonstrated they were fing animals in need of being put down.
“I don’t get it. Why are you asking this? They’re breaking the law. Just lock them up or, better yet, shoot them.
/end imitation of most of the people who feel the need to post their opinions on facebook”
I have to admit, that is pretty much my opinion of people who set fire to buildings, loot businesses, and beat up innocent bystanders: Enough already, cap their asses.
You want me to listen to your complaints? Setting fire to buildings, and then cutting the firehoses is pretty much the worst possible way to do it. If you’re the sort of person who’d do that, any problems you have with the police I’m going to assume you brought on yourself. And maybe not enough of it, if you’re still on the streets.
They didn’t demonstrate that they had a legitimate grievance. They demonstrated they were fing animals in need of being put down.
“I don’t get it. Why are you asking this? They’re breaking the law. Just lock them up or, better yet, shoot them.
/end imitation of most of the people who feel the need to post their opinions on facebook”
I have to admit, that is pretty much my opinion of people who set fire to buildings, loot businesses, and beat up innocent bystanders: Enough already, cap their asses.
You want me to listen to your complaints? Setting fire to buildings, and then cutting the firehoses is pretty much the worst possible way to do it. If you’re the sort of person who’d do that, any problems you have with the police I’m going to assume you brought on yourself. And maybe not enough of it, if you’re still on the streets.
They didn’t demonstrate that they had a legitimate grievance. They demonstrated they were fing animals in need of being put down.
For anybody interested, the transcripts are up:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_7l48.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q2_2dp3.pdf
For anybody interested, the transcripts are up:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_7l48.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q2_2dp3.pdf
For anybody interested, the transcripts are up:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_7l48.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q2_2dp3.pdf
They demonstrated they were fing animals in need of being put down.
the tree of liberty is very selective about the blood it feeds on.
They demonstrated they were fing animals in need of being put down.
the tree of liberty is very selective about the blood it feeds on.
They demonstrated they were fing animals in need of being put down.
the tree of liberty is very selective about the blood it feeds on.
“One thing that confuses me about discussions about protester violence in Baltimore (especially on facebook, cleek is so depressingly right) is that a lot of people are assuming that protesters all made a conscious decision to riot. I don’t think that often happens.”
That’s because the riot was scheduled in advance. It wasn’t spontaneous.
Not that I’d have any more respect for people who are on such a hair trigger that they can spontaneously riot.
“One thing that confuses me about discussions about protester violence in Baltimore (especially on facebook, cleek is so depressingly right) is that a lot of people are assuming that protesters all made a conscious decision to riot. I don’t think that often happens.”
That’s because the riot was scheduled in advance. It wasn’t spontaneous.
Not that I’d have any more respect for people who are on such a hair trigger that they can spontaneously riot.
“One thing that confuses me about discussions about protester violence in Baltimore (especially on facebook, cleek is so depressingly right) is that a lot of people are assuming that protesters all made a conscious decision to riot. I don’t think that often happens.”
That’s because the riot was scheduled in advance. It wasn’t spontaneous.
Not that I’d have any more respect for people who are on such a hair trigger that they can spontaneously riot.
They didn’t demonstrate that they had a legitimate grievance.
Do they need to? Let’s suppose all the people who rioted stayed home and read the bible. Would that change whether or not they had a legitimate grievance?
Do you prefer shooting people who riot to figuring out why they’re rioting and possibly doing something about it, so they or others in similar situations don’t feel the need to riot again?
They didn’t demonstrate that they had a legitimate grievance.
Do they need to? Let’s suppose all the people who rioted stayed home and read the bible. Would that change whether or not they had a legitimate grievance?
Do you prefer shooting people who riot to figuring out why they’re rioting and possibly doing something about it, so they or others in similar situations don’t feel the need to riot again?
They didn’t demonstrate that they had a legitimate grievance.
Do they need to? Let’s suppose all the people who rioted stayed home and read the bible. Would that change whether or not they had a legitimate grievance?
Do you prefer shooting people who riot to figuring out why they’re rioting and possibly doing something about it, so they or others in similar situations don’t feel the need to riot again?
“They demonstrated they were fing animals in need of being put down.”
The police or the rioters?
“They demonstrated they were fing animals in need of being put down.”
The police or the rioters?
“They demonstrated they were fing animals in need of being put down.”
The police or the rioters?
“the tree of liberty is very selective about the blood it feeds on.”
Jefferson said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
The rioters didn’t strike me as patriots, but maybe they were. Were the store owners whose businesses were looted and then burned, the bystanders beaten, tyrants? I rather doubt that.
Even if you’ve got a reason to be mad, if you’re incapable of directing your anger at the people who made you made, you’re nothing but a walking bomb. If you reliable direct it against people who have something to steal, you’re not even that innocent.
“the tree of liberty is very selective about the blood it feeds on.”
Jefferson said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
The rioters didn’t strike me as patriots, but maybe they were. Were the store owners whose businesses were looted and then burned, the bystanders beaten, tyrants? I rather doubt that.
Even if you’ve got a reason to be mad, if you’re incapable of directing your anger at the people who made you made, you’re nothing but a walking bomb. If you reliable direct it against people who have something to steal, you’re not even that innocent.
“the tree of liberty is very selective about the blood it feeds on.”
Jefferson said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
The rioters didn’t strike me as patriots, but maybe they were. Were the store owners whose businesses were looted and then burned, the bystanders beaten, tyrants? I rather doubt that.
Even if you’ve got a reason to be mad, if you’re incapable of directing your anger at the people who made you made, you’re nothing but a walking bomb. If you reliable direct it against people who have something to steal, you’re not even that innocent.
A tree can’t live on blood alone – it needs watered down a bit. Historically, it seems like 3 parts blood out of every 5 is an agreeable ratio.
A tree can’t live on blood alone – it needs watered down a bit. Historically, it seems like 3 parts blood out of every 5 is an agreeable ratio.
A tree can’t live on blood alone – it needs watered down a bit. Historically, it seems like 3 parts blood out of every 5 is an agreeable ratio.
(@cleek – grumble, grumble, forgot to refresh before posting)
(@cleek – grumble, grumble, forgot to refresh before posting)
(@cleek – grumble, grumble, forgot to refresh before posting)
There’s been first hand reports, from a teacher in the school across from Mondawmin Mall, that the “kids rioting at Mondawmin Mall” was a somewhat predictable result:
Mondawmin Mall is a transportation hub, used by many high school kids using public transportation to get home after school.
Riot cops blockaded the kids converging on the Mall, and shut down the public transportation, leaving hundreds of kids with no way home.
There’s a lot more details in the local news coverage than makes it onto national news.
There’s been first hand reports, from a teacher in the school across from Mondawmin Mall, that the “kids rioting at Mondawmin Mall” was a somewhat predictable result:
Mondawmin Mall is a transportation hub, used by many high school kids using public transportation to get home after school.
Riot cops blockaded the kids converging on the Mall, and shut down the public transportation, leaving hundreds of kids with no way home.
There’s a lot more details in the local news coverage than makes it onto national news.
There’s been first hand reports, from a teacher in the school across from Mondawmin Mall, that the “kids rioting at Mondawmin Mall” was a somewhat predictable result:
Mondawmin Mall is a transportation hub, used by many high school kids using public transportation to get home after school.
Riot cops blockaded the kids converging on the Mall, and shut down the public transportation, leaving hundreds of kids with no way home.
There’s a lot more details in the local news coverage than makes it onto national news.
What he’s talking about is the hypocrisy of calls for non-violence from certain people. That’s not the same are calling for or excusing violence. Nor is saying, “What do you expect?”
How do you interpret this?
And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is “correct” or “wise,” any more than a forest fire can be “correct” or “wise.”
What he’s talking about is the hypocrisy of calls for non-violence from certain people. That’s not the same are calling for or excusing violence. Nor is saying, “What do you expect?”
How do you interpret this?
And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is “correct” or “wise,” any more than a forest fire can be “correct” or “wise.”
What he’s talking about is the hypocrisy of calls for non-violence from certain people. That’s not the same are calling for or excusing violence. Nor is saying, “What do you expect?”
How do you interpret this?
And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is “correct” or “wise,” any more than a forest fire can be “correct” or “wise.”
Icarus, you quoted all of that only to demonstrate that you think TNC is cheering for violence in some subtle fashion. I think he is expressing some sympathy for the rioters myself. So what? I think the rioting is stupid and wrong and immoral and suspect that some of it is really just an excuse to be violent, but some of it might be a misplaced way of venting rage and TNC is pointing out the reasons. You don’t seem very interested in those reasons, just in scoring a point against TNC.
Icarus, you quoted all of that only to demonstrate that you think TNC is cheering for violence in some subtle fashion. I think he is expressing some sympathy for the rioters myself. So what? I think the rioting is stupid and wrong and immoral and suspect that some of it is really just an excuse to be violent, but some of it might be a misplaced way of venting rage and TNC is pointing out the reasons. You don’t seem very interested in those reasons, just in scoring a point against TNC.
Icarus, you quoted all of that only to demonstrate that you think TNC is cheering for violence in some subtle fashion. I think he is expressing some sympathy for the rioters myself. So what? I think the rioting is stupid and wrong and immoral and suspect that some of it is really just an excuse to be violent, but some of it might be a misplaced way of venting rage and TNC is pointing out the reasons. You don’t seem very interested in those reasons, just in scoring a point against TNC.
What cleek said, only altered so that it includes anyone not in Baltimore, too.
Because I’m a big-tent kind of guy.
What cleek said, only altered so that it includes anyone not in Baltimore, too.
Because I’m a big-tent kind of guy.
What cleek said, only altered so that it includes anyone not in Baltimore, too.
Because I’m a big-tent kind of guy.
Using the “icarus standard for interpretation”, when Brett says:
Even if you’ve got a reason to be mad, if you’re incapable of directing your anger at the people who made you made, you’re nothing but a walking bomb
he is advocating violence directed at the Baltimore police.
Using the “icarus standard for interpretation”, when Brett says:
Even if you’ve got a reason to be mad, if you’re incapable of directing your anger at the people who made you made, you’re nothing but a walking bomb
he is advocating violence directed at the Baltimore police.
Using the “icarus standard for interpretation”, when Brett says:
Even if you’ve got a reason to be mad, if you’re incapable of directing your anger at the people who made you made, you’re nothing but a walking bomb
he is advocating violence directed at the Baltimore police.
Nom, let me repeat myself:
“Even if you’ve got a reason to be mad, if you’re incapable of directing your anger at the people who made you mad, you’re nothing but a walking bomb. If you reliably direct it against people who have something to steal, you’re not even that innocent.”
Maybe they had a beef with the police, and with politicians. But, that’s not who they attacked, now, is it? No, they attacked their own neighbors who had something to steal.
The beef was just an excuse to go looting.
Nom, let me repeat myself:
“Even if you’ve got a reason to be mad, if you’re incapable of directing your anger at the people who made you mad, you’re nothing but a walking bomb. If you reliably direct it against people who have something to steal, you’re not even that innocent.”
Maybe they had a beef with the police, and with politicians. But, that’s not who they attacked, now, is it? No, they attacked their own neighbors who had something to steal.
The beef was just an excuse to go looting.
Nom, let me repeat myself:
“Even if you’ve got a reason to be mad, if you’re incapable of directing your anger at the people who made you mad, you’re nothing but a walking bomb. If you reliably direct it against people who have something to steal, you’re not even that innocent.”
Maybe they had a beef with the police, and with politicians. But, that’s not who they attacked, now, is it? No, they attacked their own neighbors who had something to steal.
The beef was just an excuse to go looting.
“They” and “you” seem to be doing an awful lot of work in this discussion.
“They” and “you” seem to be doing an awful lot of work in this discussion.
“They” and “you” seem to be doing an awful lot of work in this discussion.
“he is advocating violence directed at the Baltimore police.”
I’m saying that, if somebody wrongs you, attacking them has some logical relationship to the wrong. If somebody wrongs you, and you turn around and attack somebody else, you can’t point to being wronged as an excuse, you’re just a mad dog.
I don’t think the police are categorically immune from justified violence. It’s generally not prudent, though it may frequently be justified.
But setting aside all questions of prudence, what did the rioters’ actual victims do to deserve it? Nothing.
If you can’t direct your violence at the people who actually wronged you, why should anyone care if you were wronged? You’re a beast, not a person to be reasoned with.
“he is advocating violence directed at the Baltimore police.”
I’m saying that, if somebody wrongs you, attacking them has some logical relationship to the wrong. If somebody wrongs you, and you turn around and attack somebody else, you can’t point to being wronged as an excuse, you’re just a mad dog.
I don’t think the police are categorically immune from justified violence. It’s generally not prudent, though it may frequently be justified.
But setting aside all questions of prudence, what did the rioters’ actual victims do to deserve it? Nothing.
If you can’t direct your violence at the people who actually wronged you, why should anyone care if you were wronged? You’re a beast, not a person to be reasoned with.
“he is advocating violence directed at the Baltimore police.”
I’m saying that, if somebody wrongs you, attacking them has some logical relationship to the wrong. If somebody wrongs you, and you turn around and attack somebody else, you can’t point to being wronged as an excuse, you’re just a mad dog.
I don’t think the police are categorically immune from justified violence. It’s generally not prudent, though it may frequently be justified.
But setting aside all questions of prudence, what did the rioters’ actual victims do to deserve it? Nothing.
If you can’t direct your violence at the people who actually wronged you, why should anyone care if you were wronged? You’re a beast, not a person to be reasoned with.
I’ll repeat myself.
I don’t get it. Why are you asking this?
The point being that not enough people take the time to consider the broader context in which these things happen. No, it’s just tough-guy moralizing about how to put the animals down and give them what they deserve.
Rioting is fncking stupid. It doesn’t require the most stupid response, though. And sometimes people do stupid, wrong things when they’ve been fncked with day after day, year after year, hopelessly and without recourse.
It doesn’t excuse it, but I would think a rational person would prefer avoiding predictable and violent reactions to simply reacting violently to them.
I’ll repeat myself.
I don’t get it. Why are you asking this?
The point being that not enough people take the time to consider the broader context in which these things happen. No, it’s just tough-guy moralizing about how to put the animals down and give them what they deserve.
Rioting is fncking stupid. It doesn’t require the most stupid response, though. And sometimes people do stupid, wrong things when they’ve been fncked with day after day, year after year, hopelessly and without recourse.
It doesn’t excuse it, but I would think a rational person would prefer avoiding predictable and violent reactions to simply reacting violently to them.
I’ll repeat myself.
I don’t get it. Why are you asking this?
The point being that not enough people take the time to consider the broader context in which these things happen. No, it’s just tough-guy moralizing about how to put the animals down and give them what they deserve.
Rioting is fncking stupid. It doesn’t require the most stupid response, though. And sometimes people do stupid, wrong things when they’ve been fncked with day after day, year after year, hopelessly and without recourse.
It doesn’t excuse it, but I would think a rational person would prefer avoiding predictable and violent reactions to simply reacting violently to them.
You’re a beast, not a person to be reasoned with.
Let’s take this as an assumption, for the sake of argument. How did someone born with 46 chromosomes become a beast rather than a person to be reasoned with? Is that something to be avoided?
You’re a beast, not a person to be reasoned with.
Let’s take this as an assumption, for the sake of argument. How did someone born with 46 chromosomes become a beast rather than a person to be reasoned with? Is that something to be avoided?
You’re a beast, not a person to be reasoned with.
Let’s take this as an assumption, for the sake of argument. How did someone born with 46 chromosomes become a beast rather than a person to be reasoned with? Is that something to be avoided?
Brett 1:54: I have to admit, that is pretty much my opinion of people who set fire to buildings, loot businesses, and beat up innocent bystanders: Enough already, cap their asses.
Brett 2:08: That’s because the riot was scheduled in advance. It wasn’t spontaneous.
I was around when we saw rioting in the Bay Area in the late 1960s. The same kind of burning and looting happened. And those riots were also planned — I personally made a point of picking up the flyers each morning, so I would know which areas to avoid later in the day.
It would be fascinating to know if Brett would be quite so eager for lethal measures when the rioters were upper middle class, white, college kids. Which they surely were then. Or would he be advocating for those kids carrying guns as is their right, so they could fight back at government oppression? Hard choice.
Brett 1:54: I have to admit, that is pretty much my opinion of people who set fire to buildings, loot businesses, and beat up innocent bystanders: Enough already, cap their asses.
Brett 2:08: That’s because the riot was scheduled in advance. It wasn’t spontaneous.
I was around when we saw rioting in the Bay Area in the late 1960s. The same kind of burning and looting happened. And those riots were also planned — I personally made a point of picking up the flyers each morning, so I would know which areas to avoid later in the day.
It would be fascinating to know if Brett would be quite so eager for lethal measures when the rioters were upper middle class, white, college kids. Which they surely were then. Or would he be advocating for those kids carrying guns as is their right, so they could fight back at government oppression? Hard choice.
Brett 1:54: I have to admit, that is pretty much my opinion of people who set fire to buildings, loot businesses, and beat up innocent bystanders: Enough already, cap their asses.
Brett 2:08: That’s because the riot was scheduled in advance. It wasn’t spontaneous.
I was around when we saw rioting in the Bay Area in the late 1960s. The same kind of burning and looting happened. And those riots were also planned — I personally made a point of picking up the flyers each morning, so I would know which areas to avoid later in the day.
It would be fascinating to know if Brett would be quite so eager for lethal measures when the rioters were upper middle class, white, college kids. Which they surely were then. Or would he be advocating for those kids carrying guns as is their right, so they could fight back at government oppression? Hard choice.
If somebody wrongs you, and you turn around and attack somebody else, you can’t point to being wronged as an excuse, you’re just a mad dog.
oh, indeed
If somebody wrongs you, and you turn around and attack somebody else, you can’t point to being wronged as an excuse, you’re just a mad dog.
oh, indeed
If somebody wrongs you, and you turn around and attack somebody else, you can’t point to being wronged as an excuse, you’re just a mad dog.
oh, indeed
What should the politicians do? Let the city burn and tell the people that violence is OK?
No. They need to start doing something about the conditions that lead people to go effing bonkers in large numbers and destroy lots of sh1t.
They shouldn’t be held to account for their actions because, like wildfire, they transcend notions of right/wrong, moral/immoral, wise/unwise.
Who’s making this argument?
What should the politicians do? Let the city burn and tell the people that violence is OK?
No. They need to start doing something about the conditions that lead people to go effing bonkers in large numbers and destroy lots of sh1t.
They shouldn’t be held to account for their actions because, like wildfire, they transcend notions of right/wrong, moral/immoral, wise/unwise.
Who’s making this argument?
What should the politicians do? Let the city burn and tell the people that violence is OK?
No. They need to start doing something about the conditions that lead people to go effing bonkers in large numbers and destroy lots of sh1t.
They shouldn’t be held to account for their actions because, like wildfire, they transcend notions of right/wrong, moral/immoral, wise/unwise.
Who’s making this argument?
Chief Justice Roberts: “If a woman wants to marry a man, she can. If a man wants to marry a man, he can’t. Why isn’t that sex discrimination, he wondered.”
Well, I think we can see where this is going:
On gay marriage being a right: 6-3 in favor, with Roberts concurring, rather than agreeing with the reasoning of the other justices.
On states having to recongnize gay marriages from other states: 6-3. Or even 7-2 — depending on whether Alito (or even Scalia) decides he doesn’t want to open the can of worms about when states must recognize contracts lawfully entered into in other states.
Chief Justice Roberts: “If a woman wants to marry a man, she can. If a man wants to marry a man, he can’t. Why isn’t that sex discrimination, he wondered.”
Well, I think we can see where this is going:
On gay marriage being a right: 6-3 in favor, with Roberts concurring, rather than agreeing with the reasoning of the other justices.
On states having to recongnize gay marriages from other states: 6-3. Or even 7-2 — depending on whether Alito (or even Scalia) decides he doesn’t want to open the can of worms about when states must recognize contracts lawfully entered into in other states.
Chief Justice Roberts: “If a woman wants to marry a man, she can. If a man wants to marry a man, he can’t. Why isn’t that sex discrimination, he wondered.”
Well, I think we can see where this is going:
On gay marriage being a right: 6-3 in favor, with Roberts concurring, rather than agreeing with the reasoning of the other justices.
On states having to recongnize gay marriages from other states: 6-3. Or even 7-2 — depending on whether Alito (or even Scalia) decides he doesn’t want to open the can of worms about when states must recognize contracts lawfully entered into in other states.
The riots still raging in Baltimore after protests against the police-custody death of Freddie Gray aren’t happening in a vacuum. The violence and destruction are in no way justified but they can be partly explained by decades of failed governmental attempts to rejuvenate Charm City’s fortunes. Predictably, these efforts fail, even as they squander public resources and taxpayer dollars on useless projects that benefit well-connected politicians and business interests.
Like many older American cities, Baltimore’s population peaked at about 950,000 in 1950 and since then has settled into a long and virtually uninterrupted decline, even as the surrounding areas gained in people and opportunities. Currently about 622,000 people call Baltimore home and there’s every reason to expect more people to move out as a result of recent events.
[…]
Baltimore’s Long History of Failed Development and Urban Renewal: Police abuse might have lit the fuse, but decades of awful top-down planning helped create the explosion.
The riots still raging in Baltimore after protests against the police-custody death of Freddie Gray aren’t happening in a vacuum. The violence and destruction are in no way justified but they can be partly explained by decades of failed governmental attempts to rejuvenate Charm City’s fortunes. Predictably, these efforts fail, even as they squander public resources and taxpayer dollars on useless projects that benefit well-connected politicians and business interests.
Like many older American cities, Baltimore’s population peaked at about 950,000 in 1950 and since then has settled into a long and virtually uninterrupted decline, even as the surrounding areas gained in people and opportunities. Currently about 622,000 people call Baltimore home and there’s every reason to expect more people to move out as a result of recent events.
[…]
Baltimore’s Long History of Failed Development and Urban Renewal: Police abuse might have lit the fuse, but decades of awful top-down planning helped create the explosion.
The riots still raging in Baltimore after protests against the police-custody death of Freddie Gray aren’t happening in a vacuum. The violence and destruction are in no way justified but they can be partly explained by decades of failed governmental attempts to rejuvenate Charm City’s fortunes. Predictably, these efforts fail, even as they squander public resources and taxpayer dollars on useless projects that benefit well-connected politicians and business interests.
Like many older American cities, Baltimore’s population peaked at about 950,000 in 1950 and since then has settled into a long and virtually uninterrupted decline, even as the surrounding areas gained in people and opportunities. Currently about 622,000 people call Baltimore home and there’s every reason to expect more people to move out as a result of recent events.
[…]
Baltimore’s Long History of Failed Development and Urban Renewal: Police abuse might have lit the fuse, but decades of awful top-down planning helped create the explosion.
Nonsentient?
Holdable to no moral standard?
I’d tend to be a bit more generous in my characterization of people.
Nonsentient?
Holdable to no moral standard?
I’d tend to be a bit more generous in my characterization of people.
Nonsentient?
Holdable to no moral standard?
I’d tend to be a bit more generous in my characterization of people.
trying to make it into a racial problem
every bit of evidence is a blaring signal that it is, in fact, a racial problem. from stops, to searches, to arrests, to conviction, to sentencing: the numbers are disproportionately weighted against blacks. same behavior, different outcome; same crime, different outcome. everywhere in the country. and worse in some places.
trying to make it into a racial problem
every bit of evidence is a blaring signal that it is, in fact, a racial problem. from stops, to searches, to arrests, to conviction, to sentencing: the numbers are disproportionately weighted against blacks. same behavior, different outcome; same crime, different outcome. everywhere in the country. and worse in some places.
trying to make it into a racial problem
every bit of evidence is a blaring signal that it is, in fact, a racial problem. from stops, to searches, to arrests, to conviction, to sentencing: the numbers are disproportionately weighted against blacks. same behavior, different outcome; same crime, different outcome. everywhere in the country. and worse in some places.
When quoting, please use quotation marks.
TNC and I will not be having a conversation at this time, however.
When quoting, please use quotation marks.
TNC and I will not be having a conversation at this time, however.
When quoting, please use quotation marks.
TNC and I will not be having a conversation at this time, however.
Wait a minute, it definitely happens to whites as well.
did you happen to read anything else i wrote there?
Wait a minute, it definitely happens to whites as well.
did you happen to read anything else i wrote there?
Wait a minute, it definitely happens to whites as well.
did you happen to read anything else i wrote there?
fundamentalists are the worst kind of people.
fundamentalists are the worst kind of people.
fundamentalists are the worst kind of people.
What exactly are you saying?
What exactly are you saying? That there’s no such thing as racial bias against blacks in policing here in the USofA? Is that really an argument you’re prepared to make?
What exactly are you saying?
What exactly are you saying? That there’s no such thing as racial bias against blacks in policing here in the USofA? Is that really an argument you’re prepared to make?
What exactly are you saying?
What exactly are you saying? That there’s no such thing as racial bias against blacks in policing here in the USofA? Is that really an argument you’re prepared to make?
…it serves to make blacks more paranoid.
Cobain: just because you’re paranoid don’t mean they’re not after you
…it serves to make blacks more paranoid.
Cobain: just because you’re paranoid don’t mean they’re not after you
…it serves to make blacks more paranoid.
Cobain: just because you’re paranoid don’t mean they’re not after you
Kissinger: you’d have to be crazy not to be paranoid in this town.
Kissinger: you’d have to be crazy not to be paranoid in this town.
Kissinger: you’d have to be crazy not to be paranoid in this town.
Here is TPM’s write up of the oral arguments.
Here is TPM’s write up of the oral arguments.
Here is TPM’s write up of the oral arguments.
So what I’m saying is that if you normalize for these factors (and some others) then the racial disparity in abuse by law enforcement largely disappears.
I assume you’ve found a study that contradicts all the ones that contradict what you’re saying here.
And how did you come by your anecdota about particularly resistant and mouthy blacks?
So what I’m saying is that if you normalize for these factors (and some others) then the racial disparity in abuse by law enforcement largely disappears.
I assume you’ve found a study that contradicts all the ones that contradict what you’re saying here.
And how did you come by your anecdota about particularly resistant and mouthy blacks?
So what I’m saying is that if you normalize for these factors (and some others) then the racial disparity in abuse by law enforcement largely disappears.
I assume you’ve found a study that contradicts all the ones that contradict what you’re saying here.
And how did you come by your anecdota about particularly resistant and mouthy blacks?
So what I’m saying is that if you normalize for these factors (and some others) then the racial disparity in abuse by law enforcement largely disappears.
and you’re dead wrong.
stops: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/us/justice-department-report-to-fault-police-in-ferguson.html
stops: http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Report-Some-police-departments-may-skew-6183721.php
stops and searches: http://time.com/3482859/boston-police-racial-bias-aclu/
arrests: https://www.aclu.org/news/new-aclu-report-finds-overwhelming-racial-bias-marijuana-arrests
arrests: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/18/ferguson-black-arrest-rates/19043207/
arrests: http://www.msn.com/en-nz/health/other/investigation-uncovers-racial-bias-in-tampa-bike-arrests/vp-AAbpgkO
prosecutions: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/nyregion/09race.html
jury selection: http://www.eji.org/raceandpoverty/juryselection
sentencing: https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/news/2170-new-study-by-professor-david-s-abrams-confirms
etc: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/bench/race.html
So what I’m saying is that if you normalize for these factors (and some others) then the racial disparity in abuse by law enforcement largely disappears.
and you’re dead wrong.
stops: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/us/justice-department-report-to-fault-police-in-ferguson.html
stops: http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Report-Some-police-departments-may-skew-6183721.php
stops and searches: http://time.com/3482859/boston-police-racial-bias-aclu/
arrests: https://www.aclu.org/news/new-aclu-report-finds-overwhelming-racial-bias-marijuana-arrests
arrests: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/18/ferguson-black-arrest-rates/19043207/
arrests: http://www.msn.com/en-nz/health/other/investigation-uncovers-racial-bias-in-tampa-bike-arrests/vp-AAbpgkO
prosecutions: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/nyregion/09race.html
jury selection: http://www.eji.org/raceandpoverty/juryselection
sentencing: https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/news/2170-new-study-by-professor-david-s-abrams-confirms
etc: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/bench/race.html
So what I’m saying is that if you normalize for these factors (and some others) then the racial disparity in abuse by law enforcement largely disappears.
and you’re dead wrong.
stops: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/us/justice-department-report-to-fault-police-in-ferguson.html
stops: http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Report-Some-police-departments-may-skew-6183721.php
stops and searches: http://time.com/3482859/boston-police-racial-bias-aclu/
arrests: https://www.aclu.org/news/new-aclu-report-finds-overwhelming-racial-bias-marijuana-arrests
arrests: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/18/ferguson-black-arrest-rates/19043207/
arrests: http://www.msn.com/en-nz/health/other/investigation-uncovers-racial-bias-in-tampa-bike-arrests/vp-AAbpgkO
prosecutions: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/nyregion/09race.html
jury selection: http://www.eji.org/raceandpoverty/juryselection
sentencing: https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/news/2170-new-study-by-professor-david-s-abrams-confirms
etc: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/bench/race.html
Did someone delete the comment I just responded to?
Did someone delete the comment I just responded to?
Did someone delete the comment I just responded to?
Whoops, this conversation is going to look a little odd. Yes, it’s him again, our local racist troll, I added yet another IP addy to the block list. Buh-bye, “Icarus”.
Whoops, this conversation is going to look a little odd. Yes, it’s him again, our local racist troll, I added yet another IP addy to the block list. Buh-bye, “Icarus”.
Whoops, this conversation is going to look a little odd. Yes, it’s him again, our local racist troll, I added yet another IP addy to the block list. Buh-bye, “Icarus”.
I have to say, cleek, you’re willing to put forth a lot more effort than I am.
I have to say, cleek, you’re willing to put forth a lot more effort than I am.
I have to say, cleek, you’re willing to put forth a lot more effort than I am.
And, No, I don’t think mouthing-off to a cop should get you beaten, but, knowing that some cops have little tolerance for non-compliance in any form, mouthing-off is a really bad idea.
Or maybe we should weed out the cops who treat everything like a nail and give them a job as a framing carpenter instead?
And, No, I don’t think mouthing-off to a cop should get you beaten, but, knowing that some cops have little tolerance for non-compliance in any form, mouthing-off is a really bad idea.
Or maybe we should weed out the cops who treat everything like a nail and give them a job as a framing carpenter instead?
And, No, I don’t think mouthing-off to a cop should get you beaten, but, knowing that some cops have little tolerance for non-compliance in any form, mouthing-off is a really bad idea.
Or maybe we should weed out the cops who treat everything like a nail and give them a job as a framing carpenter instead?
fundamentalists are the worst kind of people.
Don’t know. Imo pretend-fundamentalists are even worse, in particular when they try to outfanatic each other in order to impress (and deceive) the real ones.
Exhibit A: about any GOP/TP primary these days. Not to forget televangelists and quite a number of media personalities.
fundamentalists are the worst kind of people.
Don’t know. Imo pretend-fundamentalists are even worse, in particular when they try to outfanatic each other in order to impress (and deceive) the real ones.
Exhibit A: about any GOP/TP primary these days. Not to forget televangelists and quite a number of media personalities.
fundamentalists are the worst kind of people.
Don’t know. Imo pretend-fundamentalists are even worse, in particular when they try to outfanatic each other in order to impress (and deceive) the real ones.
Exhibit A: about any GOP/TP primary these days. Not to forget televangelists and quite a number of media personalities.
Kennedy: “But still, 10 years is … I don’t even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia. This definition [of marriage being between opposite sexes] has been with us for millennia. And it’s very difficult for the Court to say, ‘Oh, well, we know better.”
Grrr. It’s not about “redefining marriage” – as if that’s the Court’s role or even the role of state legislatures. It’s about states granting rights and privileges selectively. Get over the whole “redefining marriage” nonsense Tony! All of you FTM.
Maybe they have to address that because of the procedural posture of the case, but Jesus.
Kennedy: “But still, 10 years is … I don’t even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia. This definition [of marriage being between opposite sexes] has been with us for millennia. And it’s very difficult for the Court to say, ‘Oh, well, we know better.”
Grrr. It’s not about “redefining marriage” – as if that’s the Court’s role or even the role of state legislatures. It’s about states granting rights and privileges selectively. Get over the whole “redefining marriage” nonsense Tony! All of you FTM.
Maybe they have to address that because of the procedural posture of the case, but Jesus.
Kennedy: “But still, 10 years is … I don’t even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia. This definition [of marriage being between opposite sexes] has been with us for millennia. And it’s very difficult for the Court to say, ‘Oh, well, we know better.”
Grrr. It’s not about “redefining marriage” – as if that’s the Court’s role or even the role of state legislatures. It’s about states granting rights and privileges selectively. Get over the whole “redefining marriage” nonsense Tony! All of you FTM.
Maybe they have to address that because of the procedural posture of the case, but Jesus.
Thanks for the link, Ugh. It almost sounds like the question of states having to recognize gay marriages which happen in other states might even got 8-1.
Which will not quite be the same, legally, as winning on whether states are allowed to ban gay marriages or not. But the effect will be that there will be gay marriages everywhere. And it will be hard for anyone to argue that you are really accomplishing anything by refusing to allow gay couples to be married at home, if they can just fly off to Las Vegas for a long weekend and end up just as married.
Thanks for the link, Ugh. It almost sounds like the question of states having to recognize gay marriages which happen in other states might even got 8-1.
Which will not quite be the same, legally, as winning on whether states are allowed to ban gay marriages or not. But the effect will be that there will be gay marriages everywhere. And it will be hard for anyone to argue that you are really accomplishing anything by refusing to allow gay couples to be married at home, if they can just fly off to Las Vegas for a long weekend and end up just as married.
Thanks for the link, Ugh. It almost sounds like the question of states having to recognize gay marriages which happen in other states might even got 8-1.
Which will not quite be the same, legally, as winning on whether states are allowed to ban gay marriages or not. But the effect will be that there will be gay marriages everywhere. And it will be hard for anyone to argue that you are really accomplishing anything by refusing to allow gay couples to be married at home, if they can just fly off to Las Vegas for a long weekend and end up just as married.
“Cobain: just because you’re paranoid don’t mean they’re not after you.”
Joseph Heller
“Cobain: just because you’re paranoid don’t mean they’re not after you.”
Joseph Heller
“Cobain: just because you’re paranoid don’t mean they’re not after you.”
Joseph Heller
Heller used proper grammar when he wrote it.
Heller used proper grammar when he wrote it.
Heller used proper grammar when he wrote it.
paranoia: the destroia
-Davies
paranoia: the destroia
-Davies
paranoia: the destroia
-Davies
Can’t get no proper grammar in rock and roll.
Can’t get no proper grammar in rock and roll.
Can’t get no proper grammar in rock and roll.
David Simon wrote this too:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/david-simon-capitalism-marx-two-americas-wire?CMP=ema_565
hat tip DKos
David Simon wrote this too:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/david-simon-capitalism-marx-two-americas-wire?CMP=ema_565
hat tip DKos
David Simon wrote this too:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/david-simon-capitalism-marx-two-americas-wire?CMP=ema_565
hat tip DKos
That’s a good link there, Count.
That’s a good link there, Count.
That’s a good link there, Count.
“Rioting is fncking stupid.”
No. Burning your own house, looting your own house, beating yourself up, is fncking stupid. Doing it to other people is fncking EVIL.
These people didn’t loot stores because they mistook them for police stations. They looted stores because they were in the mood for a bit of robbery, and holding a riot would give them cover, and cause the people who are actually stupid to be in a mood to stupidly forgive them for it.
Don’t be one of those stupid people, have the guts to recognize evil when confronted with it.
“Rioting is fncking stupid.”
No. Burning your own house, looting your own house, beating yourself up, is fncking stupid. Doing it to other people is fncking EVIL.
These people didn’t loot stores because they mistook them for police stations. They looted stores because they were in the mood for a bit of robbery, and holding a riot would give them cover, and cause the people who are actually stupid to be in a mood to stupidly forgive them for it.
Don’t be one of those stupid people, have the guts to recognize evil when confronted with it.
“Rioting is fncking stupid.”
No. Burning your own house, looting your own house, beating yourself up, is fncking stupid. Doing it to other people is fncking EVIL.
These people didn’t loot stores because they mistook them for police stations. They looted stores because they were in the mood for a bit of robbery, and holding a riot would give them cover, and cause the people who are actually stupid to be in a mood to stupidly forgive them for it.
Don’t be one of those stupid people, have the guts to recognize evil when confronted with it.
lots of things are evil.
lots of things are evil.
lots of things are evil.
Whatever, Brett. Your sense of moral superiority is the most important thing. Your guts and lack of stupidity, too.
Whatever, Brett. Your sense of moral superiority is the most important thing. Your guts and lack of stupidity, too.
Whatever, Brett. Your sense of moral superiority is the most important thing. Your guts and lack of stupidity, too.
Don’t be one of those stupid people, have the guts to recognize evil when confronted with it.
Here is a basic timeline of Gray’s arrest and subsequent death.
The injuries that caused Gray’s death were three fractured vertebrae and a crushed voicebox. His spine was about 80% severed.
One medical examiner characterized the injuries as like something you would expect from a car crash.
There was no car crash. Something else happened. Nobody seems to know what.
Don’t be one of those stupid people, have the guts to recognize evil when confronted with it.
Here is a basic timeline of Gray’s arrest and subsequent death.
The injuries that caused Gray’s death were three fractured vertebrae and a crushed voicebox. His spine was about 80% severed.
One medical examiner characterized the injuries as like something you would expect from a car crash.
There was no car crash. Something else happened. Nobody seems to know what.
Don’t be one of those stupid people, have the guts to recognize evil when confronted with it.
Here is a basic timeline of Gray’s arrest and subsequent death.
The injuries that caused Gray’s death were three fractured vertebrae and a crushed voicebox. His spine was about 80% severed.
One medical examiner characterized the injuries as like something you would expect from a car crash.
There was no car crash. Something else happened. Nobody seems to know what.
I still think there’s a real possibility that all nine justices, even Scalia, will affirm marriage equality.
They may publish four different opinions, but they will all concur.
This will be their chance to stand alongside the nine justices in the unanimous Brown v. Topeka Board of Education ruling, their probably last chance to retrieve their place in history from the gutter of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United.
I still think there’s a real possibility that all nine justices, even Scalia, will affirm marriage equality.
They may publish four different opinions, but they will all concur.
This will be their chance to stand alongside the nine justices in the unanimous Brown v. Topeka Board of Education ruling, their probably last chance to retrieve their place in history from the gutter of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United.
I still think there’s a real possibility that all nine justices, even Scalia, will affirm marriage equality.
They may publish four different opinions, but they will all concur.
This will be their chance to stand alongside the nine justices in the unanimous Brown v. Topeka Board of Education ruling, their probably last chance to retrieve their place in history from the gutter of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United.
I could maybe see a 9-0 vote on the question of states having to recognize gay marriages which were lawfully entered into in states where they are legal. Not likely, but at least possible. The full-faith-and-credence principle being as strong as it is, even Thomas might sign on to that one.
But I am failing to picture a scenario where there is a 9-0 vote to require states to license gay marriages. A failure of imagination on my part, no doubt.
I could maybe see a 9-0 vote on the question of states having to recognize gay marriages which were lawfully entered into in states where they are legal. Not likely, but at least possible. The full-faith-and-credence principle being as strong as it is, even Thomas might sign on to that one.
But I am failing to picture a scenario where there is a 9-0 vote to require states to license gay marriages. A failure of imagination on my part, no doubt.
I could maybe see a 9-0 vote on the question of states having to recognize gay marriages which were lawfully entered into in states where they are legal. Not likely, but at least possible. The full-faith-and-credence principle being as strong as it is, even Thomas might sign on to that one.
But I am failing to picture a scenario where there is a 9-0 vote to require states to license gay marriages. A failure of imagination on my part, no doubt.
A failure of imagination on my part, no doubt.
I can *imagine* arguments that Alito/Scalia/Thomas would sign onto. I just don’t think its likely.
6-3 or 7-2 is my guess. I’m not completely discounting the possibility of 9-0, only because I’m assuming Roberts really wants consensus on this issue (for legacy reasons) and may be able to come up with a narrow reasoning that everybody signs onto.
A failure of imagination on my part, no doubt.
I can *imagine* arguments that Alito/Scalia/Thomas would sign onto. I just don’t think its likely.
6-3 or 7-2 is my guess. I’m not completely discounting the possibility of 9-0, only because I’m assuming Roberts really wants consensus on this issue (for legacy reasons) and may be able to come up with a narrow reasoning that everybody signs onto.
A failure of imagination on my part, no doubt.
I can *imagine* arguments that Alito/Scalia/Thomas would sign onto. I just don’t think its likely.
6-3 or 7-2 is my guess. I’m not completely discounting the possibility of 9-0, only because I’m assuming Roberts really wants consensus on this issue (for legacy reasons) and may be able to come up with a narrow reasoning that everybody signs onto.
Something else happened. Nobody seems to know what.
If it wasn’t so sad, it would almost be an Onion article.
Man in custody severs spine. Police baffled.
Something else happened. Nobody seems to know what.
If it wasn’t so sad, it would almost be an Onion article.
Man in custody severs spine. Police baffled.
Something else happened. Nobody seems to know what.
If it wasn’t so sad, it would almost be an Onion article.
Man in custody severs spine. Police baffled.
“Your sense of moral superiority is the most important thing.”
Yes, I feel morally superior to arsonists and looters. Frown on that all you like, you’re frowning on a common attitude.
“Your sense of moral superiority is the most important thing.”
Yes, I feel morally superior to arsonists and looters. Frown on that all you like, you’re frowning on a common attitude.
“Your sense of moral superiority is the most important thing.”
Yes, I feel morally superior to arsonists and looters. Frown on that all you like, you’re frowning on a common attitude.
“There was no car crash. Something else happened. Nobody seems to know what.”
I have no trouble at all believing that Gray was murdered. I don’t have a high opinion of law enforcement, the profession is a bully magnet.
But I’m pretty darned sure he wasn’t murdered by any of the shopkeepers or bystanders the rioters attacked, so what’s the relevance of it?
“There was no car crash. Something else happened. Nobody seems to know what.”
I have no trouble at all believing that Gray was murdered. I don’t have a high opinion of law enforcement, the profession is a bully magnet.
But I’m pretty darned sure he wasn’t murdered by any of the shopkeepers or bystanders the rioters attacked, so what’s the relevance of it?
“There was no car crash. Something else happened. Nobody seems to know what.”
I have no trouble at all believing that Gray was murdered. I don’t have a high opinion of law enforcement, the profession is a bully magnet.
But I’m pretty darned sure he wasn’t murdered by any of the shopkeepers or bystanders the rioters attacked, so what’s the relevance of it?
So again, Brett…if the rioters had attacked the COPS, the “bully magnet” profession, the ones responsible for numerous deaths in their community, THAT would be justified.
But they didn’t, so bad on them.
So again, Brett…if the rioters had attacked the COPS, the “bully magnet” profession, the ones responsible for numerous deaths in their community, THAT would be justified.
But they didn’t, so bad on them.
So again, Brett…if the rioters had attacked the COPS, the “bully magnet” profession, the ones responsible for numerous deaths in their community, THAT would be justified.
But they didn’t, so bad on them.
There are a million thoughts racing through my mind about Obergefell v. Hodges. A part of me has been waiting for this day for years. Now that it’s here, all I feel is a tremendous lump in my throat. A decision either way changes my life forever.
A court decision in favor of SSM means that finally, FINALLY, I can breathe. Indiana is one concentrated, right-wing whack-job push away from rescinding the legal protections my wife and I currently share. A decision maintaining that all states must allow same-sex couples to wed means I need no longer worry about waking up in the morning to learn someone trying to score political points is introducing a bill in our Senate to repeal SSM here.
A decision on the second point is perhaps more important to me though. If states are not required to honor the marriages of couples who were married out-of-state, this places an enormous burden on people who want to change jobs, accept a new position in a different state, or even drive across state lines while on vacation. A heterosexual couple shares the same visitation rights at a hospital in all fifty states. They share the ability to make decisions for an incapacitated spouse, up to and including end-of-life decisions.
It’s terrifying to consider travel to Ohio if by suddenly crossing my state’s boarder, we’re at the mercy of a whole different sludge of rules concerning our status as a married couple. In Ohio, I could be asked to leave my wife’s bedside after visiting hours in a hospital. I could be forced to testify against her, or vice versa, in the case of a trial; no spousal privilege. Yes, THIS is the stupid crap I have to think about before we hop in the car and drive to Cincinnati to visit friends.
I want that gone. I don’t want to look at maps, wondering if maybe it’s worth taking a three-hour detour just to avoid a certain state on the off-chance something happens there. If the SCOTUS agrees with Obergefell, that’s exactly what I get.
When gays and lesbians talk about wanting equal treatment, this is what we mean. I didn’t want to get married just so I could flaunt it in my religious neighbor’s face. I wanted to get married because I love my wife, and as human beings, we deserve to not even have to worry about the dumb things I worry about despite living in a state which has legalized SSM.
But I’m too scared, too worked up, to watch this all hash out in real time. I just want to wake up tomorrow morning and hear things went my way. If they don’t, well, I’ll still live. She and I will still be married. And I will still love her with all of my heart. I’ll just be heart-broken that other people refuse to see things my way.
There are a million thoughts racing through my mind about Obergefell v. Hodges. A part of me has been waiting for this day for years. Now that it’s here, all I feel is a tremendous lump in my throat. A decision either way changes my life forever.
A court decision in favor of SSM means that finally, FINALLY, I can breathe. Indiana is one concentrated, right-wing whack-job push away from rescinding the legal protections my wife and I currently share. A decision maintaining that all states must allow same-sex couples to wed means I need no longer worry about waking up in the morning to learn someone trying to score political points is introducing a bill in our Senate to repeal SSM here.
A decision on the second point is perhaps more important to me though. If states are not required to honor the marriages of couples who were married out-of-state, this places an enormous burden on people who want to change jobs, accept a new position in a different state, or even drive across state lines while on vacation. A heterosexual couple shares the same visitation rights at a hospital in all fifty states. They share the ability to make decisions for an incapacitated spouse, up to and including end-of-life decisions.
It’s terrifying to consider travel to Ohio if by suddenly crossing my state’s boarder, we’re at the mercy of a whole different sludge of rules concerning our status as a married couple. In Ohio, I could be asked to leave my wife’s bedside after visiting hours in a hospital. I could be forced to testify against her, or vice versa, in the case of a trial; no spousal privilege. Yes, THIS is the stupid crap I have to think about before we hop in the car and drive to Cincinnati to visit friends.
I want that gone. I don’t want to look at maps, wondering if maybe it’s worth taking a three-hour detour just to avoid a certain state on the off-chance something happens there. If the SCOTUS agrees with Obergefell, that’s exactly what I get.
When gays and lesbians talk about wanting equal treatment, this is what we mean. I didn’t want to get married just so I could flaunt it in my religious neighbor’s face. I wanted to get married because I love my wife, and as human beings, we deserve to not even have to worry about the dumb things I worry about despite living in a state which has legalized SSM.
But I’m too scared, too worked up, to watch this all hash out in real time. I just want to wake up tomorrow morning and hear things went my way. If they don’t, well, I’ll still live. She and I will still be married. And I will still love her with all of my heart. I’ll just be heart-broken that other people refuse to see things my way.
There are a million thoughts racing through my mind about Obergefell v. Hodges. A part of me has been waiting for this day for years. Now that it’s here, all I feel is a tremendous lump in my throat. A decision either way changes my life forever.
A court decision in favor of SSM means that finally, FINALLY, I can breathe. Indiana is one concentrated, right-wing whack-job push away from rescinding the legal protections my wife and I currently share. A decision maintaining that all states must allow same-sex couples to wed means I need no longer worry about waking up in the morning to learn someone trying to score political points is introducing a bill in our Senate to repeal SSM here.
A decision on the second point is perhaps more important to me though. If states are not required to honor the marriages of couples who were married out-of-state, this places an enormous burden on people who want to change jobs, accept a new position in a different state, or even drive across state lines while on vacation. A heterosexual couple shares the same visitation rights at a hospital in all fifty states. They share the ability to make decisions for an incapacitated spouse, up to and including end-of-life decisions.
It’s terrifying to consider travel to Ohio if by suddenly crossing my state’s boarder, we’re at the mercy of a whole different sludge of rules concerning our status as a married couple. In Ohio, I could be asked to leave my wife’s bedside after visiting hours in a hospital. I could be forced to testify against her, or vice versa, in the case of a trial; no spousal privilege. Yes, THIS is the stupid crap I have to think about before we hop in the car and drive to Cincinnati to visit friends.
I want that gone. I don’t want to look at maps, wondering if maybe it’s worth taking a three-hour detour just to avoid a certain state on the off-chance something happens there. If the SCOTUS agrees with Obergefell, that’s exactly what I get.
When gays and lesbians talk about wanting equal treatment, this is what we mean. I didn’t want to get married just so I could flaunt it in my religious neighbor’s face. I wanted to get married because I love my wife, and as human beings, we deserve to not even have to worry about the dumb things I worry about despite living in a state which has legalized SSM.
But I’m too scared, too worked up, to watch this all hash out in real time. I just want to wake up tomorrow morning and hear things went my way. If they don’t, well, I’ll still live. She and I will still be married. And I will still love her with all of my heart. I’ll just be heart-broken that other people refuse to see things my way.
Yes, I feel morally superior to arsonists and looters. Frown on that all you like, you’re frowning on a common attitude.
Forget what I said about your lack of stupidity. It’s your sense of moral superiority – or one-upmanship, even – that you’re so dissatified with the characterization of rioting as being fncking stupid that you need to respond that, “no! – it’s eeevillll, and you’re too much of a moral cowrard to admit it, and you’re stupid for excusing it.”
You really nailed it there, Brett. That, of course, is what I meant when I wrote that rioting was fncking stupid – that it must be excused, because it’s not evil. That’s always what people mean when they don’t go far enough according to your desire for opprobrium, stupid moral-cowards that they are – compared to you, sitting on your high horse.
Yes, I feel morally superior to arsonists and looters. Frown on that all you like, you’re frowning on a common attitude.
Forget what I said about your lack of stupidity. It’s your sense of moral superiority – or one-upmanship, even – that you’re so dissatified with the characterization of rioting as being fncking stupid that you need to respond that, “no! – it’s eeevillll, and you’re too much of a moral cowrard to admit it, and you’re stupid for excusing it.”
You really nailed it there, Brett. That, of course, is what I meant when I wrote that rioting was fncking stupid – that it must be excused, because it’s not evil. That’s always what people mean when they don’t go far enough according to your desire for opprobrium, stupid moral-cowards that they are – compared to you, sitting on your high horse.
Yes, I feel morally superior to arsonists and looters. Frown on that all you like, you’re frowning on a common attitude.
Forget what I said about your lack of stupidity. It’s your sense of moral superiority – or one-upmanship, even – that you’re so dissatified with the characterization of rioting as being fncking stupid that you need to respond that, “no! – it’s eeevillll, and you’re too much of a moral cowrard to admit it, and you’re stupid for excusing it.”
You really nailed it there, Brett. That, of course, is what I meant when I wrote that rioting was fncking stupid – that it must be excused, because it’s not evil. That’s always what people mean when they don’t go far enough according to your desire for opprobrium, stupid moral-cowards that they are – compared to you, sitting on your high horse.
[…]
The stakes in the same-sex marriage cases are undeniably high, both for same-sex couples and for advocates of traditional marriage alike. But the megawatt attention over the cases should not obscure how the rights of millions of entrepreneurs and others could vanish overnight if the Supreme Court adopts the legal reasoning used by the 6th Circuit. No matter if you support traditional values or marriage equality, America does not need a decision from the High Court embracing the constitutionality of cronyism.
The Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Decision Could Unintentionally Uphold Crony Capitalism
[…]
The stakes in the same-sex marriage cases are undeniably high, both for same-sex couples and for advocates of traditional marriage alike. But the megawatt attention over the cases should not obscure how the rights of millions of entrepreneurs and others could vanish overnight if the Supreme Court adopts the legal reasoning used by the 6th Circuit. No matter if you support traditional values or marriage equality, America does not need a decision from the High Court embracing the constitutionality of cronyism.
The Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Decision Could Unintentionally Uphold Crony Capitalism
[…]
The stakes in the same-sex marriage cases are undeniably high, both for same-sex couples and for advocates of traditional marriage alike. But the megawatt attention over the cases should not obscure how the rights of millions of entrepreneurs and others could vanish overnight if the Supreme Court adopts the legal reasoning used by the 6th Circuit. No matter if you support traditional values or marriage equality, America does not need a decision from the High Court embracing the constitutionality of cronyism.
The Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Decision Could Unintentionally Uphold Crony Capitalism
Heh. Dahlia Lithwick: Throughout the argument, Bursch [arguing against same-sex marriage] grants adoptive parents a slightly lesser bond than biological parents, which is a strange tactic before a court with two members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, who have adopted children, and who might not believe that their bonds are the state’s sad fallback.
Oops.
Heh. Dahlia Lithwick: Throughout the argument, Bursch [arguing against same-sex marriage] grants adoptive parents a slightly lesser bond than biological parents, which is a strange tactic before a court with two members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, who have adopted children, and who might not believe that their bonds are the state’s sad fallback.
Oops.
Heh. Dahlia Lithwick: Throughout the argument, Bursch [arguing against same-sex marriage] grants adoptive parents a slightly lesser bond than biological parents, which is a strange tactic before a court with two members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, who have adopted children, and who might not believe that their bonds are the state’s sad fallback.
Oops.
The rioting is the best thing that could happen for the Baltimore PD.
The rioting is the best thing that could happen for the Baltimore PD.
The rioting is the best thing that could happen for the Baltimore PD.
They didn’t demonstrate that they had a legitimate grievance. They demonstrated they were fing animals in need of being put down
I like the standard being applied here for fing animals in need of being put down.
Irresponsible, reckless, heedless, destroyers of other people’s lives, property and livelihoods.
Let’s get ’em all. Not just get ’em, let’s put ’em down like fing animals.
When I had my cat put down, it was a fatal dose of barbiturates delivered intravenously. We could do that, or we could just go the cowboy way, like putting down a lame horse. A bullet in the brain.
Here’s my short list.
The MF’ing executives of the tobacco companies from way back when, standing up and lying to Congress about what the research said about the health impacts of smoking. One in the hat, or a fatal dose of downers via IV. They pick.
The greedy SOB’s who sank the global economy in ’08 to get their six and seven figure bonuses. Boris the Whale, and the @sshole that ran Countrywide, and all of their buddies. Maybe Jamie Dimon, that would make an impression. One in the hat, or a fatal dose of downers, they pick.
Don Blankenship, from Massey Energy. Nufff said. No bullet, no downers, we seal him off in a tunnel a half mile down and let nature take it’s course.
Gary Southern, president of Freedom Industries, who dumped thousands of gallons of poison into the drinking water of 300,000 people in West Virginia. No bullet, no IV, he drinks the water he poisoned until he drinks 300,000 gallons or until he’s dead, whichever comes first.
Dick Cheney, for personally making sure that fracking technology was exempt from every relevant law and regulatory policy. No bullet, no downers, he gets to drink a gallon of fracking fluid per day until he’s dead.
This is kind of fun, I could go on for hours.
Let’s all pile in. Everybody chime in with their candidates for the veterinary remedy. This thread will go over 1,000 comments in no time.
If we want to be putting people down like fing animals, I insist on equality under the law. You mess with people’s lives, property, or livelihoods, down you go. Like a fing animal. Not my words, that’s courtesy of our pal Brett.
They can take a bullet and go the cowboy way, or take a barbiturate IV and go like my cat. Their choice.
You want to kill somebody for throwing a chair through a window? You’re raising the bar dude. Be careful what you wish for, this could get very entertaining.
When gays and lesbians talk about wanting equal treatment, this is what we mean.
Yes. Equal treatment.
Don’t believe in gay marriage? Don’t marry somebody of your own gender.
Problem solved.
Equality under the law is one of a very small handful of bedrock foundational principles of what makes the US the US. If anybody’s left out, it ain’t working.
Bursch [arguing against same-sex marriage] grants adoptive parents a slightly lesser bond than biological parents, which is a strange tactic before a court with two members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, who have adopted children
It’s also asinine because *a lot of gay people are the biological parents of their children*.
Seriously, this is being presented as an argument in a SCOTUS case? Folks need to get out more.
They didn’t demonstrate that they had a legitimate grievance. They demonstrated they were fing animals in need of being put down
I like the standard being applied here for fing animals in need of being put down.
Irresponsible, reckless, heedless, destroyers of other people’s lives, property and livelihoods.
Let’s get ’em all. Not just get ’em, let’s put ’em down like fing animals.
When I had my cat put down, it was a fatal dose of barbiturates delivered intravenously. We could do that, or we could just go the cowboy way, like putting down a lame horse. A bullet in the brain.
Here’s my short list.
The MF’ing executives of the tobacco companies from way back when, standing up and lying to Congress about what the research said about the health impacts of smoking. One in the hat, or a fatal dose of downers via IV. They pick.
The greedy SOB’s who sank the global economy in ’08 to get their six and seven figure bonuses. Boris the Whale, and the @sshole that ran Countrywide, and all of their buddies. Maybe Jamie Dimon, that would make an impression. One in the hat, or a fatal dose of downers, they pick.
Don Blankenship, from Massey Energy. Nufff said. No bullet, no downers, we seal him off in a tunnel a half mile down and let nature take it’s course.
Gary Southern, president of Freedom Industries, who dumped thousands of gallons of poison into the drinking water of 300,000 people in West Virginia. No bullet, no IV, he drinks the water he poisoned until he drinks 300,000 gallons or until he’s dead, whichever comes first.
Dick Cheney, for personally making sure that fracking technology was exempt from every relevant law and regulatory policy. No bullet, no downers, he gets to drink a gallon of fracking fluid per day until he’s dead.
This is kind of fun, I could go on for hours.
Let’s all pile in. Everybody chime in with their candidates for the veterinary remedy. This thread will go over 1,000 comments in no time.
If we want to be putting people down like fing animals, I insist on equality under the law. You mess with people’s lives, property, or livelihoods, down you go. Like a fing animal. Not my words, that’s courtesy of our pal Brett.
They can take a bullet and go the cowboy way, or take a barbiturate IV and go like my cat. Their choice.
You want to kill somebody for throwing a chair through a window? You’re raising the bar dude. Be careful what you wish for, this could get very entertaining.
When gays and lesbians talk about wanting equal treatment, this is what we mean.
Yes. Equal treatment.
Don’t believe in gay marriage? Don’t marry somebody of your own gender.
Problem solved.
Equality under the law is one of a very small handful of bedrock foundational principles of what makes the US the US. If anybody’s left out, it ain’t working.
Bursch [arguing against same-sex marriage] grants adoptive parents a slightly lesser bond than biological parents, which is a strange tactic before a court with two members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, who have adopted children
It’s also asinine because *a lot of gay people are the biological parents of their children*.
Seriously, this is being presented as an argument in a SCOTUS case? Folks need to get out more.
They didn’t demonstrate that they had a legitimate grievance. They demonstrated they were fing animals in need of being put down
I like the standard being applied here for fing animals in need of being put down.
Irresponsible, reckless, heedless, destroyers of other people’s lives, property and livelihoods.
Let’s get ’em all. Not just get ’em, let’s put ’em down like fing animals.
When I had my cat put down, it was a fatal dose of barbiturates delivered intravenously. We could do that, or we could just go the cowboy way, like putting down a lame horse. A bullet in the brain.
Here’s my short list.
The MF’ing executives of the tobacco companies from way back when, standing up and lying to Congress about what the research said about the health impacts of smoking. One in the hat, or a fatal dose of downers via IV. They pick.
The greedy SOB’s who sank the global economy in ’08 to get their six and seven figure bonuses. Boris the Whale, and the @sshole that ran Countrywide, and all of their buddies. Maybe Jamie Dimon, that would make an impression. One in the hat, or a fatal dose of downers, they pick.
Don Blankenship, from Massey Energy. Nufff said. No bullet, no downers, we seal him off in a tunnel a half mile down and let nature take it’s course.
Gary Southern, president of Freedom Industries, who dumped thousands of gallons of poison into the drinking water of 300,000 people in West Virginia. No bullet, no IV, he drinks the water he poisoned until he drinks 300,000 gallons or until he’s dead, whichever comes first.
Dick Cheney, for personally making sure that fracking technology was exempt from every relevant law and regulatory policy. No bullet, no downers, he gets to drink a gallon of fracking fluid per day until he’s dead.
This is kind of fun, I could go on for hours.
Let’s all pile in. Everybody chime in with their candidates for the veterinary remedy. This thread will go over 1,000 comments in no time.
If we want to be putting people down like fing animals, I insist on equality under the law. You mess with people’s lives, property, or livelihoods, down you go. Like a fing animal. Not my words, that’s courtesy of our pal Brett.
They can take a bullet and go the cowboy way, or take a barbiturate IV and go like my cat. Their choice.
You want to kill somebody for throwing a chair through a window? You’re raising the bar dude. Be careful what you wish for, this could get very entertaining.
When gays and lesbians talk about wanting equal treatment, this is what we mean.
Yes. Equal treatment.
Don’t believe in gay marriage? Don’t marry somebody of your own gender.
Problem solved.
Equality under the law is one of a very small handful of bedrock foundational principles of what makes the US the US. If anybody’s left out, it ain’t working.
Bursch [arguing against same-sex marriage] grants adoptive parents a slightly lesser bond than biological parents, which is a strange tactic before a court with two members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, who have adopted children
It’s also asinine because *a lot of gay people are the biological parents of their children*.
Seriously, this is being presented as an argument in a SCOTUS case? Folks need to get out more.
If Brett thinks black Baltimoreans would have done better to attack those actually responsible for the indignities they have suffered, he should clean his private guns and take inventory of his own ammo. For it is fundamentally the knee-jerk, holier-than-thou, white-privilege mindset of people like Brett that underlies the shit black people constantly have to eat in this country.
If Brett the Bulwark-Against-Tyranny Libertarian were actually serious in his views about the 2nd Amendment, he’d be threatening to take up arms against the Baltimore Police himself.
If Brett’s attitude on the previous issue is that people should defend their own damn rights, with firearms if necessary, and leave him the hell out of it — well, that would raise the interesting question of whether Brett would encourage the “beasts” and “mad dogs” to pack heat like the red-necked and the lily-white.
If Brett is offended by any of the above, I would not condemn him for breaking his own windows and setting fire to his own furniture in response.
–TP
If Brett thinks black Baltimoreans would have done better to attack those actually responsible for the indignities they have suffered, he should clean his private guns and take inventory of his own ammo. For it is fundamentally the knee-jerk, holier-than-thou, white-privilege mindset of people like Brett that underlies the shit black people constantly have to eat in this country.
If Brett the Bulwark-Against-Tyranny Libertarian were actually serious in his views about the 2nd Amendment, he’d be threatening to take up arms against the Baltimore Police himself.
If Brett’s attitude on the previous issue is that people should defend their own damn rights, with firearms if necessary, and leave him the hell out of it — well, that would raise the interesting question of whether Brett would encourage the “beasts” and “mad dogs” to pack heat like the red-necked and the lily-white.
If Brett is offended by any of the above, I would not condemn him for breaking his own windows and setting fire to his own furniture in response.
–TP
If Brett thinks black Baltimoreans would have done better to attack those actually responsible for the indignities they have suffered, he should clean his private guns and take inventory of his own ammo. For it is fundamentally the knee-jerk, holier-than-thou, white-privilege mindset of people like Brett that underlies the shit black people constantly have to eat in this country.
If Brett the Bulwark-Against-Tyranny Libertarian were actually serious in his views about the 2nd Amendment, he’d be threatening to take up arms against the Baltimore Police himself.
If Brett’s attitude on the previous issue is that people should defend their own damn rights, with firearms if necessary, and leave him the hell out of it — well, that would raise the interesting question of whether Brett would encourage the “beasts” and “mad dogs” to pack heat like the red-necked and the lily-white.
If Brett is offended by any of the above, I would not condemn him for breaking his own windows and setting fire to his own furniture in response.
–TP
To have a lawyer so fail in his job as to (presumably from ignorance) stand up and make an argument which tells a judge that his family arrangements are deficient? Too bad for his clients that it is now too late to fire him for malpractice.
But maybe they can sue him after. Especially if his argument turns Thomas against them — that will take serious effort to achieve.
To have a lawyer so fail in his job as to (presumably from ignorance) stand up and make an argument which tells a judge that his family arrangements are deficient? Too bad for his clients that it is now too late to fire him for malpractice.
But maybe they can sue him after. Especially if his argument turns Thomas against them — that will take serious effort to achieve.
To have a lawyer so fail in his job as to (presumably from ignorance) stand up and make an argument which tells a judge that his family arrangements are deficient? Too bad for his clients that it is now too late to fire him for malpractice.
But maybe they can sue him after. Especially if his argument turns Thomas against them — that will take serious effort to achieve.
Wow, russell, great job simulating one of count’s rants.
Needs moar “pig-filth”, but otherwise 100% pitch perfect. Bravo!
Wow, russell, great job simulating one of count’s rants.
Needs moar “pig-filth”, but otherwise 100% pitch perfect. Bravo!
Wow, russell, great job simulating one of count’s rants.
Needs moar “pig-filth”, but otherwise 100% pitch perfect. Bravo!
Wow, russell, great job simulating one of count’s rants.
The Count occupies another plane of blog discourse. He weaves tapestries where I am happy to pull a single thread from my spindle.
I’m just a grunt.
But thanks for the kind words.
Wow, russell, great job simulating one of count’s rants.
The Count occupies another plane of blog discourse. He weaves tapestries where I am happy to pull a single thread from my spindle.
I’m just a grunt.
But thanks for the kind words.
Wow, russell, great job simulating one of count’s rants.
The Count occupies another plane of blog discourse. He weaves tapestries where I am happy to pull a single thread from my spindle.
I’m just a grunt.
But thanks for the kind words.
“You’re a beast, not a person to be reasoned with.”
Funny, isn’t it, how Brett Bellmore only ever applies this sort of language to black people? You might think he’d have learned from being banned by Crooked Timber not to let his racism show quite so blatantly. I guess that good old neo-confederate itch needed some scratching.
“You’re a beast, not a person to be reasoned with.”
Funny, isn’t it, how Brett Bellmore only ever applies this sort of language to black people? You might think he’d have learned from being banned by Crooked Timber not to let his racism show quite so blatantly. I guess that good old neo-confederate itch needed some scratching.
“You’re a beast, not a person to be reasoned with.”
Funny, isn’t it, how Brett Bellmore only ever applies this sort of language to black people? You might think he’d have learned from being banned by Crooked Timber not to let his racism show quite so blatantly. I guess that good old neo-confederate itch needed some scratching.
oddly, Brett’s authoritarian side only seems to come out when authority is kicking black ass. all the other times, he’s like authority is the tool of the corrupt elites who assert their will through violence and the enslavement of our freedoms! give me weapons so that i may fight their tyranny!
pish and posh
oddly, Brett’s authoritarian side only seems to come out when authority is kicking black ass. all the other times, he’s like authority is the tool of the corrupt elites who assert their will through violence and the enslavement of our freedoms! give me weapons so that i may fight their tyranny!
pish and posh
oddly, Brett’s authoritarian side only seems to come out when authority is kicking black ass. all the other times, he’s like authority is the tool of the corrupt elites who assert their will through violence and the enslavement of our freedoms! give me weapons so that i may fight their tyranny!
pish and posh
Just watched a fair bit of this. 40 years ago this month.
Just watched a fair bit of this. 40 years ago this month.
Just watched a fair bit of this. 40 years ago this month.
Cleek, you are doing Brett an injustice. I don’t think he is really racist. He just has blind spots you can drive a big-rig through. It really is a very different thing.
Cleek, you are doing Brett an injustice. I don’t think he is really racist. He just has blind spots you can drive a big-rig through. It really is a very different thing.
Cleek, you are doing Brett an injustice. I don’t think he is really racist. He just has blind spots you can drive a big-rig through. It really is a very different thing.
Yes, I feel morally superior to arsonists and looters. Frown on that all you like, you’re frowning on a common attitude.
There is no substitute for the moral high you get from the heady gusts of rush of self righteousness, and one would willingly burn down just about anything to sustain it.
Reason itself, it would seem.
Anything can burn. You just need enough heat.
Yes, I feel morally superior to arsonists and looters. Frown on that all you like, you’re frowning on a common attitude.
There is no substitute for the moral high you get from the heady gusts of rush of self righteousness, and one would willingly burn down just about anything to sustain it.
Reason itself, it would seem.
Anything can burn. You just need enough heat.
Yes, I feel morally superior to arsonists and looters. Frown on that all you like, you’re frowning on a common attitude.
There is no substitute for the moral high you get from the heady gusts of rush of self righteousness, and one would willingly burn down just about anything to sustain it.
Reason itself, it would seem.
Anything can burn. You just need enough heat.
One can only be amazed by those who are comfortable asserting they know better the ways of resistance than those who are actually oppressed.
One can only be amazed by those who are comfortable asserting they know better the ways of resistance than those who are actually oppressed.
One can only be amazed by those who are comfortable asserting they know better the ways of resistance than those who are actually oppressed.
What kind of moral blindness does it take to NOT feel superior to arsonists and looters? What the heck is the point of being capable of exercising judgement, if you’re determined not to do it?
Somebody refuses to bake a cake, you’re willing to judge them, impose penalties. Somebody burns a store to the ground after robbing it?
We mustn’t be judgmental.
“One can only be amazed by those who are comfortable asserting they know better the ways of resistance than those who are actually oppressed.”
Oh, that makes a lot of sense. And I suppose you can only be amazed by those who are comfortably well off asserting that they know better than the poor how to make money, athletes asserting that they know better than couch potatoes how to stay in shape, and so forth.
What kind of moral blindness does it take to NOT feel superior to arsonists and looters? What the heck is the point of being capable of exercising judgement, if you’re determined not to do it?
Somebody refuses to bake a cake, you’re willing to judge them, impose penalties. Somebody burns a store to the ground after robbing it?
We mustn’t be judgmental.
“One can only be amazed by those who are comfortable asserting they know better the ways of resistance than those who are actually oppressed.”
Oh, that makes a lot of sense. And I suppose you can only be amazed by those who are comfortably well off asserting that they know better than the poor how to make money, athletes asserting that they know better than couch potatoes how to stay in shape, and so forth.
What kind of moral blindness does it take to NOT feel superior to arsonists and looters? What the heck is the point of being capable of exercising judgement, if you’re determined not to do it?
Somebody refuses to bake a cake, you’re willing to judge them, impose penalties. Somebody burns a store to the ground after robbing it?
We mustn’t be judgmental.
“One can only be amazed by those who are comfortable asserting they know better the ways of resistance than those who are actually oppressed.”
Oh, that makes a lot of sense. And I suppose you can only be amazed by those who are comfortably well off asserting that they know better than the poor how to make money, athletes asserting that they know better than couch potatoes how to stay in shape, and so forth.
Cleek, you are doing Brett an injustice. I don’t think he is really racist. He just has blind spots you can drive a big-rig through.
I think that we are all racist to a certain extent, so it is a pot and kettle thing. Anyone raised in the US or, for that matter, in any place that is part of the mainstream global culture can’t get away from it.
Brett’s problem is that he is unrelentingly unreflective and unable to admit to reconsidering something when it is pointed out to him. This leads to folks here employing bigger and bigger cluesticks in a hopeless attempt to get him to stop and pause for a moment. However, I don’t think the cluestick has been made that will get him to reflect. So why even bother?
For those of you who are open to the possibility that it might not be the fault of those who are rioting, you may want to consider this.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/how-baltimore-riots-began-mondawmin-purge
Cleek, you are doing Brett an injustice. I don’t think he is really racist. He just has blind spots you can drive a big-rig through.
I think that we are all racist to a certain extent, so it is a pot and kettle thing. Anyone raised in the US or, for that matter, in any place that is part of the mainstream global culture can’t get away from it.
Brett’s problem is that he is unrelentingly unreflective and unable to admit to reconsidering something when it is pointed out to him. This leads to folks here employing bigger and bigger cluesticks in a hopeless attempt to get him to stop and pause for a moment. However, I don’t think the cluestick has been made that will get him to reflect. So why even bother?
For those of you who are open to the possibility that it might not be the fault of those who are rioting, you may want to consider this.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/how-baltimore-riots-began-mondawmin-purge
Cleek, you are doing Brett an injustice. I don’t think he is really racist. He just has blind spots you can drive a big-rig through.
I think that we are all racist to a certain extent, so it is a pot and kettle thing. Anyone raised in the US or, for that matter, in any place that is part of the mainstream global culture can’t get away from it.
Brett’s problem is that he is unrelentingly unreflective and unable to admit to reconsidering something when it is pointed out to him. This leads to folks here employing bigger and bigger cluesticks in a hopeless attempt to get him to stop and pause for a moment. However, I don’t think the cluestick has been made that will get him to reflect. So why even bother?
For those of you who are open to the possibility that it might not be the fault of those who are rioting, you may want to consider this.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/how-baltimore-riots-began-mondawmin-purge
Somebody burns a store to the ground after robbing it?
What you don’t seem to understand, Brett, is that there are larger questions than whether or not rioters, arsonists and looters did something wrong on a particular day. That’s the point people are trying to make, or at least the point I’m trying to make.
What’s driving this particular line in the discussion is that you latch onto my charactrization of rioting as being merely fnck stupid, which falls short of your characterization of it as being evil – a characterization you never used until you decided to get on your high horse and demonstrate my, and I assume others’, moral blindness. It’s bullshit.
Do you really think I’m going to complain if they catch someone who lit a store on fire, arrest them, try them and sentence them to prison? Guess what? I’m not. That’s how judgemental I am. Put them in jail. Is that good enough?
The thing is, I’d prefer that there not be any rioting in the first place, rather than putting people in jail for rioting, so I’d like to look beyond the immediate circumstances of a single day to understand how things got so fncked up. The rioters actually are human beings, not animals, and they are exhibiting human behavior, even when roiting, looting and burning things.
It’s certainly not desirable human behavior, but that many people don’t just go out and do that sort of thing over nothing. Asking why they did what they did, looking for reasons, isn’t looking for excuses, but you’re too full of righteous fervor to think beyond how to punish the rioters.
And you have yet to address your point about their actions being misdirected at innocent people, rather than the admittedly criminal police. If they had directed all their anger and destruction at the police, would it have been okay, in your opinion? Would they be patriots then?
Somebody burns a store to the ground after robbing it?
What you don’t seem to understand, Brett, is that there are larger questions than whether or not rioters, arsonists and looters did something wrong on a particular day. That’s the point people are trying to make, or at least the point I’m trying to make.
What’s driving this particular line in the discussion is that you latch onto my charactrization of rioting as being merely fnck stupid, which falls short of your characterization of it as being evil – a characterization you never used until you decided to get on your high horse and demonstrate my, and I assume others’, moral blindness. It’s bullshit.
Do you really think I’m going to complain if they catch someone who lit a store on fire, arrest them, try them and sentence them to prison? Guess what? I’m not. That’s how judgemental I am. Put them in jail. Is that good enough?
The thing is, I’d prefer that there not be any rioting in the first place, rather than putting people in jail for rioting, so I’d like to look beyond the immediate circumstances of a single day to understand how things got so fncked up. The rioters actually are human beings, not animals, and they are exhibiting human behavior, even when roiting, looting and burning things.
It’s certainly not desirable human behavior, but that many people don’t just go out and do that sort of thing over nothing. Asking why they did what they did, looking for reasons, isn’t looking for excuses, but you’re too full of righteous fervor to think beyond how to punish the rioters.
And you have yet to address your point about their actions being misdirected at innocent people, rather than the admittedly criminal police. If they had directed all their anger and destruction at the police, would it have been okay, in your opinion? Would they be patriots then?
Somebody burns a store to the ground after robbing it?
What you don’t seem to understand, Brett, is that there are larger questions than whether or not rioters, arsonists and looters did something wrong on a particular day. That’s the point people are trying to make, or at least the point I’m trying to make.
What’s driving this particular line in the discussion is that you latch onto my charactrization of rioting as being merely fnck stupid, which falls short of your characterization of it as being evil – a characterization you never used until you decided to get on your high horse and demonstrate my, and I assume others’, moral blindness. It’s bullshit.
Do you really think I’m going to complain if they catch someone who lit a store on fire, arrest them, try them and sentence them to prison? Guess what? I’m not. That’s how judgemental I am. Put them in jail. Is that good enough?
The thing is, I’d prefer that there not be any rioting in the first place, rather than putting people in jail for rioting, so I’d like to look beyond the immediate circumstances of a single day to understand how things got so fncked up. The rioters actually are human beings, not animals, and they are exhibiting human behavior, even when roiting, looting and burning things.
It’s certainly not desirable human behavior, but that many people don’t just go out and do that sort of thing over nothing. Asking why they did what they did, looking for reasons, isn’t looking for excuses, but you’re too full of righteous fervor to think beyond how to punish the rioters.
And you have yet to address your point about their actions being misdirected at innocent people, rather than the admittedly criminal police. If they had directed all their anger and destruction at the police, would it have been okay, in your opinion? Would they be patriots then?
Somebody burns a store to the ground after robbing it?
We mustn’t be judgmental.
I don’t think anybody here has made the argument that looters are beyond judgement. Or if they have, I’ve missed it.
I wouldn’t make that argument. I would say, chaos and its attendant violence are predictable and expected when a group of people are marginalized, and their government is not representative of their needs or concerns.
I think what TNC was getting at, and I agree with, was that police brutality on a population will ultimately result in the population being violent. And while its all well and good to urge nonviolence, it rings hollow when those calls are coming from the very people who are shrugging their shoulders about a severed spine.
Your point that the rage and violence could potentially be better directed…well, I suppose. But I don’t think that anybody has made the argument that its properly directed, just that undirected violence is expected and predicable.
Of course, all my talk of arguments ‘anybody has made’ is based on my perceptions. I don’t speak for anybody but myself.
Somebody burns a store to the ground after robbing it?
We mustn’t be judgmental.
I don’t think anybody here has made the argument that looters are beyond judgement. Or if they have, I’ve missed it.
I wouldn’t make that argument. I would say, chaos and its attendant violence are predictable and expected when a group of people are marginalized, and their government is not representative of their needs or concerns.
I think what TNC was getting at, and I agree with, was that police brutality on a population will ultimately result in the population being violent. And while its all well and good to urge nonviolence, it rings hollow when those calls are coming from the very people who are shrugging their shoulders about a severed spine.
Your point that the rage and violence could potentially be better directed…well, I suppose. But I don’t think that anybody has made the argument that its properly directed, just that undirected violence is expected and predicable.
Of course, all my talk of arguments ‘anybody has made’ is based on my perceptions. I don’t speak for anybody but myself.
Somebody burns a store to the ground after robbing it?
We mustn’t be judgmental.
I don’t think anybody here has made the argument that looters are beyond judgement. Or if they have, I’ve missed it.
I wouldn’t make that argument. I would say, chaos and its attendant violence are predictable and expected when a group of people are marginalized, and their government is not representative of their needs or concerns.
I think what TNC was getting at, and I agree with, was that police brutality on a population will ultimately result in the population being violent. And while its all well and good to urge nonviolence, it rings hollow when those calls are coming from the very people who are shrugging their shoulders about a severed spine.
Your point that the rage and violence could potentially be better directed…well, I suppose. But I don’t think that anybody has made the argument that its properly directed, just that undirected violence is expected and predicable.
Of course, all my talk of arguments ‘anybody has made’ is based on my perceptions. I don’t speak for anybody but myself.
“This leads to folks here employing bigger and bigger cluesticks”
With all respect to Teddy Roosevelt, I am not sure this “speaking softly and carrying a big cluestick” business works as well as it should.
“This leads to folks here employing bigger and bigger cluesticks”
With all respect to Teddy Roosevelt, I am not sure this “speaking softly and carrying a big cluestick” business works as well as it should.
“This leads to folks here employing bigger and bigger cluesticks”
With all respect to Teddy Roosevelt, I am not sure this “speaking softly and carrying a big cluestick” business works as well as it should.
Balmer, Merlin.
What kind of moral blindness does it take to NOT feel superior to arsonists and looters?
How freaking easy is it to see yourself as superior to people who are acting badly?
Who gives a crap if you are “morally superior” to a bunch of rioters? Do you want a merit badge?
You appear to be incapable of imagining the lives of anyone not like yourself. You haven’t thrown a brick, so you’re good, and they are bad.
Good for you. But nobody gives a crap about your moral status as compared to that of anybody in Baltimore.
Several hundred thousand people live in Baltimore, and apparently, for many many thousands of them, it royally sucks to live there. Not because of them or any particular thing they do, but because nobody gives a flying f*** about what happens to people when their livelihoods and opportunities go the hell away.
That should be a matter of concern.
Riots are epiphenomena. The primary phenomena are what should be scaring the hell out of us, and what should be stirring whatever moral outrage we are capable of.
Balmer, Merlin.
What kind of moral blindness does it take to NOT feel superior to arsonists and looters?
How freaking easy is it to see yourself as superior to people who are acting badly?
Who gives a crap if you are “morally superior” to a bunch of rioters? Do you want a merit badge?
You appear to be incapable of imagining the lives of anyone not like yourself. You haven’t thrown a brick, so you’re good, and they are bad.
Good for you. But nobody gives a crap about your moral status as compared to that of anybody in Baltimore.
Several hundred thousand people live in Baltimore, and apparently, for many many thousands of them, it royally sucks to live there. Not because of them or any particular thing they do, but because nobody gives a flying f*** about what happens to people when their livelihoods and opportunities go the hell away.
That should be a matter of concern.
Riots are epiphenomena. The primary phenomena are what should be scaring the hell out of us, and what should be stirring whatever moral outrage we are capable of.
Balmer, Merlin.
What kind of moral blindness does it take to NOT feel superior to arsonists and looters?
How freaking easy is it to see yourself as superior to people who are acting badly?
Who gives a crap if you are “morally superior” to a bunch of rioters? Do you want a merit badge?
You appear to be incapable of imagining the lives of anyone not like yourself. You haven’t thrown a brick, so you’re good, and they are bad.
Good for you. But nobody gives a crap about your moral status as compared to that of anybody in Baltimore.
Several hundred thousand people live in Baltimore, and apparently, for many many thousands of them, it royally sucks to live there. Not because of them or any particular thing they do, but because nobody gives a flying f*** about what happens to people when their livelihoods and opportunities go the hell away.
That should be a matter of concern.
Riots are epiphenomena. The primary phenomena are what should be scaring the hell out of us, and what should be stirring whatever moral outrage we are capable of.
Who gives a crap if you are “morally superior” to a bunch of rioters?
Going by lj’s link, a bunch of school kids trapped by cops in riot gear at a transportation hub when school let out, no less.
Who gives a crap if you are “morally superior” to a bunch of rioters?
Going by lj’s link, a bunch of school kids trapped by cops in riot gear at a transportation hub when school let out, no less.
Who gives a crap if you are “morally superior” to a bunch of rioters?
Going by lj’s link, a bunch of school kids trapped by cops in riot gear at a transportation hub when school let out, no less.
“a bunch of school kids trapped by cops in riot gear at a transportation hub when school let out, no less.”
Because their plans to start a riot weren’t quite as secret as they’d supposed. If you announce on social media, “Hey, let’s riot and loot at the mall at 3pm”, you really expect the police to not show up if somebody points it out to them?
And I’d say I’m the one with the clue stick here, and it’s just bouncing off your skulls.
Why should I care if it royally sucks to be them, if all they can do in response is things that increase the suckage, like burning the neighborhood down?
OK, I’m sorry they’re uncivilzed morons. Happy?
“a bunch of school kids trapped by cops in riot gear at a transportation hub when school let out, no less.”
Because their plans to start a riot weren’t quite as secret as they’d supposed. If you announce on social media, “Hey, let’s riot and loot at the mall at 3pm”, you really expect the police to not show up if somebody points it out to them?
And I’d say I’m the one with the clue stick here, and it’s just bouncing off your skulls.
Why should I care if it royally sucks to be them, if all they can do in response is things that increase the suckage, like burning the neighborhood down?
OK, I’m sorry they’re uncivilzed morons. Happy?
“a bunch of school kids trapped by cops in riot gear at a transportation hub when school let out, no less.”
Because their plans to start a riot weren’t quite as secret as they’d supposed. If you announce on social media, “Hey, let’s riot and loot at the mall at 3pm”, you really expect the police to not show up if somebody points it out to them?
And I’d say I’m the one with the clue stick here, and it’s just bouncing off your skulls.
Why should I care if it royally sucks to be them, if all they can do in response is things that increase the suckage, like burning the neighborhood down?
OK, I’m sorry they’re uncivilzed morons. Happy?
I had made myself a mental note to check on Icarus, but I have been buried at work and at home (both of which buried-nesses are a GOOD thing) and just let it slip. Thanks for closing on that.
Icarus just cannot keep from flying too close to the racism.
I had made myself a mental note to check on Icarus, but I have been buried at work and at home (both of which buried-nesses are a GOOD thing) and just let it slip. Thanks for closing on that.
Icarus just cannot keep from flying too close to the racism.
I had made myself a mental note to check on Icarus, but I have been buried at work and at home (both of which buried-nesses are a GOOD thing) and just let it slip. Thanks for closing on that.
Icarus just cannot keep from flying too close to the racism.
Here are the real morons.
Don’t put your moral outrage panties on backwards, folks.
Here are the real morons.
Don’t put your moral outrage panties on backwards, folks.
Here are the real morons.
Don’t put your moral outrage panties on backwards, folks.
What kind of moral blindness does it take to NOT feel superior to arsonists and looters?
I don’t think that is really the right question. What you should ask (or be asked) is: What kind of moral blindness does it take to be outraged, and feel superior, to arsonists and looters when they are poor minorities? While merely being irritated when the same behavior is exhibited by white college kids?
Taking “outraged” as meaning: “we should cap their asses.” And “irritated” as meaning: “they should be arrested and charged” — knowing that their families can afford to get them a good lawyer, who will manage to get them off with community service or something.
That may not be what you think you are writing. But it is what others are reading from you. If it was just a couple of people, it could be just lacking in reading comprehension; but when a whole slew of them, with very different political views otherwise, all are getting the same take?
What kind of moral blindness does it take to NOT feel superior to arsonists and looters?
I don’t think that is really the right question. What you should ask (or be asked) is: What kind of moral blindness does it take to be outraged, and feel superior, to arsonists and looters when they are poor minorities? While merely being irritated when the same behavior is exhibited by white college kids?
Taking “outraged” as meaning: “we should cap their asses.” And “irritated” as meaning: “they should be arrested and charged” — knowing that their families can afford to get them a good lawyer, who will manage to get them off with community service or something.
That may not be what you think you are writing. But it is what others are reading from you. If it was just a couple of people, it could be just lacking in reading comprehension; but when a whole slew of them, with very different political views otherwise, all are getting the same take?
What kind of moral blindness does it take to NOT feel superior to arsonists and looters?
I don’t think that is really the right question. What you should ask (or be asked) is: What kind of moral blindness does it take to be outraged, and feel superior, to arsonists and looters when they are poor minorities? While merely being irritated when the same behavior is exhibited by white college kids?
Taking “outraged” as meaning: “we should cap their asses.” And “irritated” as meaning: “they should be arrested and charged” — knowing that their families can afford to get them a good lawyer, who will manage to get them off with community service or something.
That may not be what you think you are writing. But it is what others are reading from you. If it was just a couple of people, it could be just lacking in reading comprehension; but when a whole slew of them, with very different political views otherwise, all are getting the same take?
Because their plans to start a riot weren’t quite as secret as they’d supposed
Yes, and the incredibly skillful police response was apparently to (a) cancel outbound transportation from the station so that kids who just wanted to go home couldn’t leave, and (b) surround the place with cops in riot gear.
Why should I care if it royally sucks to be them
That’s a question you have to answer for yourself.
Because their plans to start a riot weren’t quite as secret as they’d supposed
Yes, and the incredibly skillful police response was apparently to (a) cancel outbound transportation from the station so that kids who just wanted to go home couldn’t leave, and (b) surround the place with cops in riot gear.
Why should I care if it royally sucks to be them
That’s a question you have to answer for yourself.
Because their plans to start a riot weren’t quite as secret as they’d supposed
Yes, and the incredibly skillful police response was apparently to (a) cancel outbound transportation from the station so that kids who just wanted to go home couldn’t leave, and (b) surround the place with cops in riot gear.
Why should I care if it royally sucks to be them
That’s a question you have to answer for yourself.
OK, I’m sorry they’re uncivilzed morons.
Let’s assume you’re right about that. Why are they such, and why aren’t other people such? What are the circumstances that led these people to be uncivilized and moronic, if we accept your premise? Why are you sorry about it? Does that mean you’d like to change things so that more people don’t end up the same way?
OK, I’m sorry they’re uncivilzed morons.
Let’s assume you’re right about that. Why are they such, and why aren’t other people such? What are the circumstances that led these people to be uncivilized and moronic, if we accept your premise? Why are you sorry about it? Does that mean you’d like to change things so that more people don’t end up the same way?
OK, I’m sorry they’re uncivilzed morons.
Let’s assume you’re right about that. Why are they such, and why aren’t other people such? What are the circumstances that led these people to be uncivilized and moronic, if we accept your premise? Why are you sorry about it? Does that mean you’d like to change things so that more people don’t end up the same way?
Because their plans to start a riot weren’t quite as secret as they’d supposed. If you announce on social media, “Hey, let’s riot and loot at the mall at 3pm”, you really expect the police to not show up if somebody points it out to them?
Emphasis added by me. Pronoun trouble.
Because their plans to start a riot weren’t quite as secret as they’d supposed. If you announce on social media, “Hey, let’s riot and loot at the mall at 3pm”, you really expect the police to not show up if somebody points it out to them?
Emphasis added by me. Pronoun trouble.
Because their plans to start a riot weren’t quite as secret as they’d supposed. If you announce on social media, “Hey, let’s riot and loot at the mall at 3pm”, you really expect the police to not show up if somebody points it out to them?
Emphasis added by me. Pronoun trouble.
The outrage of the powerful is remarkably similar down through the ages…consider this response to an earlier tea party:
“North justified the harsh measure by asserting that Boston was “the ringleader in every riot, and set always the example which others followed.” He believed severe punishment of this rebellious town would strike terror throughout the colonies, and so bring the Americans into subjection to the crown. Many of his supporters in the House used very violent language, calling the Bostonians “mobocrats,” and “vile incendiaries;” men who were “never actuated by reason, but chose tarring and feathering as an argument.” One member denounced them as utterly unworthy of civilized forbearance. “They ought to have their town knocked about their ears,” he said; “and ought to be destroyed.” He concluded his unstinted abuse by quoting the factious cry of the old Roman orators against their African enemies–“Delenda est Carthago”–Carthage must be destroyed.”
Source.
The outrage of the powerful is remarkably similar down through the ages…consider this response to an earlier tea party:
“North justified the harsh measure by asserting that Boston was “the ringleader in every riot, and set always the example which others followed.” He believed severe punishment of this rebellious town would strike terror throughout the colonies, and so bring the Americans into subjection to the crown. Many of his supporters in the House used very violent language, calling the Bostonians “mobocrats,” and “vile incendiaries;” men who were “never actuated by reason, but chose tarring and feathering as an argument.” One member denounced them as utterly unworthy of civilized forbearance. “They ought to have their town knocked about their ears,” he said; “and ought to be destroyed.” He concluded his unstinted abuse by quoting the factious cry of the old Roman orators against their African enemies–“Delenda est Carthago”–Carthage must be destroyed.”
Source.
The outrage of the powerful is remarkably similar down through the ages…consider this response to an earlier tea party:
“North justified the harsh measure by asserting that Boston was “the ringleader in every riot, and set always the example which others followed.” He believed severe punishment of this rebellious town would strike terror throughout the colonies, and so bring the Americans into subjection to the crown. Many of his supporters in the House used very violent language, calling the Bostonians “mobocrats,” and “vile incendiaries;” men who were “never actuated by reason, but chose tarring and feathering as an argument.” One member denounced them as utterly unworthy of civilized forbearance. “They ought to have their town knocked about their ears,” he said; “and ought to be destroyed.” He concluded his unstinted abuse by quoting the factious cry of the old Roman orators against their African enemies–“Delenda est Carthago”–Carthage must be destroyed.”
Source.
“What kind of moral blindness does it take to be outraged, and feel superior, to arsonists and looters when they are poor minorities? While merely being irritated when the same behavior is exhibited by white college kids?”
What makes you think I wouldn’t take the same attitude towards white college students rioting and looting, and burning buildings down? It seems to me you’re asking me to tolerate in blacks what I wouldn’t tolerate in whites, just because they’re black. The poor dears can’t be expected to be civilized, after all.
I used to live close enough to Detroit that you could hear the rioters when the suburban police stopped them at 9 mile, a half mile from my home. I’ve driven, many times, down the expressways that go through the heart of Detroit, seen the burned buildings with trees growing out of them close to half a century later.
These people didn’t just destroy some businesses. (And how about some sympathy for their victims, eh?) They destroyed their community. It will likely never recover.
If somebody came in from outside, (I mean, aside from the professional riot organizers who we’re starting to learn are arranging these ‘spontaneous’ riots.) and bombed the hell out of Baltimore, it would be an act of war, we’d hunt them down like dogs.
Well, residents of Baltimore did this to their neighbors. Their own neighbors. I got no sympathy for them, none at all. It’s all used up on their victims.
“What kind of moral blindness does it take to be outraged, and feel superior, to arsonists and looters when they are poor minorities? While merely being irritated when the same behavior is exhibited by white college kids?”
What makes you think I wouldn’t take the same attitude towards white college students rioting and looting, and burning buildings down? It seems to me you’re asking me to tolerate in blacks what I wouldn’t tolerate in whites, just because they’re black. The poor dears can’t be expected to be civilized, after all.
I used to live close enough to Detroit that you could hear the rioters when the suburban police stopped them at 9 mile, a half mile from my home. I’ve driven, many times, down the expressways that go through the heart of Detroit, seen the burned buildings with trees growing out of them close to half a century later.
These people didn’t just destroy some businesses. (And how about some sympathy for their victims, eh?) They destroyed their community. It will likely never recover.
If somebody came in from outside, (I mean, aside from the professional riot organizers who we’re starting to learn are arranging these ‘spontaneous’ riots.) and bombed the hell out of Baltimore, it would be an act of war, we’d hunt them down like dogs.
Well, residents of Baltimore did this to their neighbors. Their own neighbors. I got no sympathy for them, none at all. It’s all used up on their victims.
“What kind of moral blindness does it take to be outraged, and feel superior, to arsonists and looters when they are poor minorities? While merely being irritated when the same behavior is exhibited by white college kids?”
What makes you think I wouldn’t take the same attitude towards white college students rioting and looting, and burning buildings down? It seems to me you’re asking me to tolerate in blacks what I wouldn’t tolerate in whites, just because they’re black. The poor dears can’t be expected to be civilized, after all.
I used to live close enough to Detroit that you could hear the rioters when the suburban police stopped them at 9 mile, a half mile from my home. I’ve driven, many times, down the expressways that go through the heart of Detroit, seen the burned buildings with trees growing out of them close to half a century later.
These people didn’t just destroy some businesses. (And how about some sympathy for their victims, eh?) They destroyed their community. It will likely never recover.
If somebody came in from outside, (I mean, aside from the professional riot organizers who we’re starting to learn are arranging these ‘spontaneous’ riots.) and bombed the hell out of Baltimore, it would be an act of war, we’d hunt them down like dogs.
Well, residents of Baltimore did this to their neighbors. Their own neighbors. I got no sympathy for them, none at all. It’s all used up on their victims.
Brett, just like the “conservatives” all over my TV, clearly don’t give one hard little shit about the primary phenomena. what gets them up in the morning is being able to cluck about the problems with “black culture”. every time a black kid breaks something, they get another chance to ignore things like police abuse and institutional racism. and they never let such an opportunity go by. because it’s much easier to scold someone else than it is to question one’s own behavior.
and they wonder why most blacks think the GOP is full of it.
Brett, just like the “conservatives” all over my TV, clearly don’t give one hard little shit about the primary phenomena. what gets them up in the morning is being able to cluck about the problems with “black culture”. every time a black kid breaks something, they get another chance to ignore things like police abuse and institutional racism. and they never let such an opportunity go by. because it’s much easier to scold someone else than it is to question one’s own behavior.
and they wonder why most blacks think the GOP is full of it.
Brett, just like the “conservatives” all over my TV, clearly don’t give one hard little shit about the primary phenomena. what gets them up in the morning is being able to cluck about the problems with “black culture”. every time a black kid breaks something, they get another chance to ignore things like police abuse and institutional racism. and they never let such an opportunity go by. because it’s much easier to scold someone else than it is to question one’s own behavior.
and they wonder why most blacks think the GOP is full of it.
Well, residents of Baltimore did this to their neighbors. Their own neighbors.
So, once again, would it have been okay if all the anger, violence and destruction were directed at the police?
Well, residents of Baltimore did this to their neighbors. Their own neighbors.
So, once again, would it have been okay if all the anger, violence and destruction were directed at the police?
Well, residents of Baltimore did this to their neighbors. Their own neighbors.
So, once again, would it have been okay if all the anger, violence and destruction were directed at the police?
These people didn’t just destroy some businesses. (And how about some sympathy for their victims, eh?) They destroyed their community
Are you thinking that the decline of Detroit over the last 50 years is due to the ’67 riots?
These people didn’t just destroy some businesses. (And how about some sympathy for their victims, eh?) They destroyed their community
Are you thinking that the decline of Detroit over the last 50 years is due to the ’67 riots?
These people didn’t just destroy some businesses. (And how about some sympathy for their victims, eh?) They destroyed their community
Are you thinking that the decline of Detroit over the last 50 years is due to the ’67 riots?
“So, once again, would it have been okay if all the anger, violence and destruction were directed at the police?”
Imprudent. But if people direct their anger at the people who anger them, you can at least afford to be around them. If they direct it randomly, even treating them nice isn’t safe. And if they direct it where stuff is available to be stolen?
They’re just theives using anger as an excuse.
“Are you thinking that the decline of Detroit over the last 50 years is due to the ’67 riots?”
Are you thinking it isn’t? Nobody in their right mind wants to live where people riot, do business where people riot. Detroit might have declined even without the riots, but the riots pushed it over a cliff.
“So, once again, would it have been okay if all the anger, violence and destruction were directed at the police?”
Imprudent. But if people direct their anger at the people who anger them, you can at least afford to be around them. If they direct it randomly, even treating them nice isn’t safe. And if they direct it where stuff is available to be stolen?
They’re just theives using anger as an excuse.
“Are you thinking that the decline of Detroit over the last 50 years is due to the ’67 riots?”
Are you thinking it isn’t? Nobody in their right mind wants to live where people riot, do business where people riot. Detroit might have declined even without the riots, but the riots pushed it over a cliff.
“So, once again, would it have been okay if all the anger, violence and destruction were directed at the police?”
Imprudent. But if people direct their anger at the people who anger them, you can at least afford to be around them. If they direct it randomly, even treating them nice isn’t safe. And if they direct it where stuff is available to be stolen?
They’re just theives using anger as an excuse.
“Are you thinking that the decline of Detroit over the last 50 years is due to the ’67 riots?”
Are you thinking it isn’t? Nobody in their right mind wants to live where people riot, do business where people riot. Detroit might have declined even without the riots, but the riots pushed it over a cliff.
It’s all used up on their victims.
Have you considered that the sorts of things that pissed off the rioters are the same things their victims, in the same neighborhoods, have to put up with?
You’re not angry with all the peaceful protesters are you? What do you think they’re protesting? Do you have any sympathy for them or care that it royally sucks to be them?
It’s all used up on their victims.
Have you considered that the sorts of things that pissed off the rioters are the same things their victims, in the same neighborhoods, have to put up with?
You’re not angry with all the peaceful protesters are you? What do you think they’re protesting? Do you have any sympathy for them or care that it royally sucks to be them?
It’s all used up on their victims.
Have you considered that the sorts of things that pissed off the rioters are the same things their victims, in the same neighborhoods, have to put up with?
You’re not angry with all the peaceful protesters are you? What do you think they’re protesting? Do you have any sympathy for them or care that it royally sucks to be them?
Not all of the “real morons” were at the horse race in Baltimore County while things were unraveling in Baltimore. Some of them were at the White House Correspondences Dinner. 🙂
Not all of the “real morons” were at the horse race in Baltimore County while things were unraveling in Baltimore. Some of them were at the White House Correspondences Dinner. 🙂
Not all of the “real morons” were at the horse race in Baltimore County while things were unraveling in Baltimore. Some of them were at the White House Correspondences Dinner. 🙂
Someone’s smug control devices have failed and require replacement. See your NAPA dealer for parts!
Someone’s smug control devices have failed and require replacement. See your NAPA dealer for parts!
Someone’s smug control devices have failed and require replacement. See your NAPA dealer for parts!
No, I’m not angry with peaceful protesters. But I’ve got no patience for anybody who uses even a real grievance as an excuse to go out and attack their neighbors.
An excuse, that’s all I think it was. Violent thieves who knew that if they individually went on a rampage they’d be picked off, but if they did it together, they’d likely get away with it.
Don’t make excuses for them.
No, I’m not angry with peaceful protesters. But I’ve got no patience for anybody who uses even a real grievance as an excuse to go out and attack their neighbors.
An excuse, that’s all I think it was. Violent thieves who knew that if they individually went on a rampage they’d be picked off, but if they did it together, they’d likely get away with it.
Don’t make excuses for them.
No, I’m not angry with peaceful protesters. But I’ve got no patience for anybody who uses even a real grievance as an excuse to go out and attack their neighbors.
An excuse, that’s all I think it was. Violent thieves who knew that if they individually went on a rampage they’d be picked off, but if they did it together, they’d likely get away with it.
Don’t make excuses for them.
Are you thinking it isn’t?
Yes, I’m thinking it isn’t.
Are you thinking it isn’t?
Yes, I’m thinking it isn’t.
Are you thinking it isn’t?
Yes, I’m thinking it isn’t.
“Yes, I’m thinking it isn’t.”
Obviously, I think you’re wrong. Too bad we didn’t have two Detroits, one of which didn’t riot.
“Yes, I’m thinking it isn’t.”
Obviously, I think you’re wrong. Too bad we didn’t have two Detroits, one of which didn’t riot.
“Yes, I’m thinking it isn’t.”
Obviously, I think you’re wrong. Too bad we didn’t have two Detroits, one of which didn’t riot.
Don’t make excuses for them.
I’ll make excuses for anyone I please, thanks.
In any case, you seem to be open to the idea that there are real grievances, and that there are people who have those grievances other than the rioters you couldn’t care less about.
So, what do you do with the same grievances the rioters have when they also apply to people who’ve done nothing wrong? Do you ignore them because of the riots, punishing the innocent along with the guilty?
Don’t make excuses for them.
I’ll make excuses for anyone I please, thanks.
In any case, you seem to be open to the idea that there are real grievances, and that there are people who have those grievances other than the rioters you couldn’t care less about.
So, what do you do with the same grievances the rioters have when they also apply to people who’ve done nothing wrong? Do you ignore them because of the riots, punishing the innocent along with the guilty?
Don’t make excuses for them.
I’ll make excuses for anyone I please, thanks.
In any case, you seem to be open to the idea that there are real grievances, and that there are people who have those grievances other than the rioters you couldn’t care less about.
So, what do you do with the same grievances the rioters have when they also apply to people who’ve done nothing wrong? Do you ignore them because of the riots, punishing the innocent along with the guilty?
I think I’m starting to get it.
Morally outraged bakers are used by powerful political interests who fund their public manifestos and pay for their appeals to the Supreme Court. Liberty!
Morally outraged blacks are provided morally correct tactical advise to engage in suicidal attacks on the police. Sucks to be you no matter what you do. Also Liberty!
I think I’m starting to get it.
Morally outraged bakers are used by powerful political interests who fund their public manifestos and pay for their appeals to the Supreme Court. Liberty!
Morally outraged blacks are provided morally correct tactical advise to engage in suicidal attacks on the police. Sucks to be you no matter what you do. Also Liberty!
I think I’m starting to get it.
Morally outraged bakers are used by powerful political interests who fund their public manifestos and pay for their appeals to the Supreme Court. Liberty!
Morally outraged blacks are provided morally correct tactical advise to engage in suicidal attacks on the police. Sucks to be you no matter what you do. Also Liberty!
Bobby, you have to understand. There are two conflicting demands here:
– Liberty! No government constraints on what a free person what to do.
– Order! Harsh government action against those engaged in violence (e.g. rioting and looting).
Although, I suppose, you could just give (oops! government spending) guns to everybody, so they could form local militias to shoot the rioters. Of course, we know how that goes in reality — just look at the areas where local criminal gangs hold sway.
Perhaps what you mean is, it sucks to be an anti-anarchist, but absolutist, libertarian. At least, if you admit that most of the world does not share your high-minded virtue when it comes to dealing with others.
Bobby, you have to understand. There are two conflicting demands here:
– Liberty! No government constraints on what a free person what to do.
– Order! Harsh government action against those engaged in violence (e.g. rioting and looting).
Although, I suppose, you could just give (oops! government spending) guns to everybody, so they could form local militias to shoot the rioters. Of course, we know how that goes in reality — just look at the areas where local criminal gangs hold sway.
Perhaps what you mean is, it sucks to be an anti-anarchist, but absolutist, libertarian. At least, if you admit that most of the world does not share your high-minded virtue when it comes to dealing with others.
Bobby, you have to understand. There are two conflicting demands here:
– Liberty! No government constraints on what a free person what to do.
– Order! Harsh government action against those engaged in violence (e.g. rioting and looting).
Although, I suppose, you could just give (oops! government spending) guns to everybody, so they could form local militias to shoot the rioters. Of course, we know how that goes in reality — just look at the areas where local criminal gangs hold sway.
Perhaps what you mean is, it sucks to be an anti-anarchist, but absolutist, libertarian. At least, if you admit that most of the world does not share your high-minded virtue when it comes to dealing with others.
Some of them were at the White House Correspondences Dinner. 🙂
Yes.
Some of them were at the White House Correspondences Dinner. 🙂
Yes.
Some of them were at the White House Correspondences Dinner. 🙂
Yes.
that was written in 1966.
that was written in 1966.
that was written in 1966.
Obviously, I think you’re wrong
Obviously.
We don’t need two Detroits. We have the example of a number of American cities that were subject to racial riots during the 1960’s.
A short list: NYC, Rochester NY, Buffalo NY, Jersey City NJ, Elizabeth NJ, Chicago, Philly, LA, Cleveland, Newark NJ, Washington DC, Baltimore, Kansas City, Louisville, and Detroit.
Just after the assassination of MLK, there were significant riots in about three dozen American cities.
Some of those cities, like Detroit, are today kind of burned-out shells of what they used to be.
Some are thriving.
Conversely, there are lots of cities that did not experience race riots in the 60’s, or since, and which were doing pretty well in the 60’s, but look kinda like Detroit now.
Most of them are in the rust belt. Former industrial cities, manufacturing moved out, now there’s no tax base, so now they’re screwed.
Cities like Youngstown, Akron, Canton, Flint and Detroit of course, Gary IN.
They’re not all as far gone as Detroit, but few places in the US are.
What’s the common thread across the cities that are circling the drain? Race riots 50 years ago?
I’m not seeing it.
If you want to pursue the argument, feel free, but the burden is on you to explain all of the above.
Obviously, I think you’re wrong
Obviously.
We don’t need two Detroits. We have the example of a number of American cities that were subject to racial riots during the 1960’s.
A short list: NYC, Rochester NY, Buffalo NY, Jersey City NJ, Elizabeth NJ, Chicago, Philly, LA, Cleveland, Newark NJ, Washington DC, Baltimore, Kansas City, Louisville, and Detroit.
Just after the assassination of MLK, there were significant riots in about three dozen American cities.
Some of those cities, like Detroit, are today kind of burned-out shells of what they used to be.
Some are thriving.
Conversely, there are lots of cities that did not experience race riots in the 60’s, or since, and which were doing pretty well in the 60’s, but look kinda like Detroit now.
Most of them are in the rust belt. Former industrial cities, manufacturing moved out, now there’s no tax base, so now they’re screwed.
Cities like Youngstown, Akron, Canton, Flint and Detroit of course, Gary IN.
They’re not all as far gone as Detroit, but few places in the US are.
What’s the common thread across the cities that are circling the drain? Race riots 50 years ago?
I’m not seeing it.
If you want to pursue the argument, feel free, but the burden is on you to explain all of the above.
Obviously, I think you’re wrong
Obviously.
We don’t need two Detroits. We have the example of a number of American cities that were subject to racial riots during the 1960’s.
A short list: NYC, Rochester NY, Buffalo NY, Jersey City NJ, Elizabeth NJ, Chicago, Philly, LA, Cleveland, Newark NJ, Washington DC, Baltimore, Kansas City, Louisville, and Detroit.
Just after the assassination of MLK, there were significant riots in about three dozen American cities.
Some of those cities, like Detroit, are today kind of burned-out shells of what they used to be.
Some are thriving.
Conversely, there are lots of cities that did not experience race riots in the 60’s, or since, and which were doing pretty well in the 60’s, but look kinda like Detroit now.
Most of them are in the rust belt. Former industrial cities, manufacturing moved out, now there’s no tax base, so now they’re screwed.
Cities like Youngstown, Akron, Canton, Flint and Detroit of course, Gary IN.
They’re not all as far gone as Detroit, but few places in the US are.
What’s the common thread across the cities that are circling the drain? Race riots 50 years ago?
I’m not seeing it.
If you want to pursue the argument, feel free, but the burden is on you to explain all of the above.
Yeah, the rioters had grievances people other than the rioters didn’t care about. Like sporting goods stores not handing out Nike shoes for free.
Who cares if I think I’m morally superior to looters? Hairshirthedonist, would be my impression.
Earlier I was told I shouldn’t think I know resistance to oppression better than the oppressed. I mocked that, and rightly. People who know how to resist oppression end up not oppressed anymore. You don’t ask obese people for diet advice. You as formerly obese people. Having a problem doesn’t magically gift you with insight into how to successfully solve it. The very fact you still have it suggests you lack that insight.
So, let me ask: What oppressed people, in a mostly free nation, ever managed to end their oppression by rioting? Did Asian-Americans go from a ghettoized, oppressed minority, routinely discriminated against, to so successful they’re routinely discriminated against, by rioting?
No. They were the targets of riots, not the instigators. They escaped poverty by hard work, not burning buildings down.
Yeah, the rioters had grievances people other than the rioters didn’t care about. Like sporting goods stores not handing out Nike shoes for free.
Who cares if I think I’m morally superior to looters? Hairshirthedonist, would be my impression.
Earlier I was told I shouldn’t think I know resistance to oppression better than the oppressed. I mocked that, and rightly. People who know how to resist oppression end up not oppressed anymore. You don’t ask obese people for diet advice. You as formerly obese people. Having a problem doesn’t magically gift you with insight into how to successfully solve it. The very fact you still have it suggests you lack that insight.
So, let me ask: What oppressed people, in a mostly free nation, ever managed to end their oppression by rioting? Did Asian-Americans go from a ghettoized, oppressed minority, routinely discriminated against, to so successful they’re routinely discriminated against, by rioting?
No. They were the targets of riots, not the instigators. They escaped poverty by hard work, not burning buildings down.
Yeah, the rioters had grievances people other than the rioters didn’t care about. Like sporting goods stores not handing out Nike shoes for free.
Who cares if I think I’m morally superior to looters? Hairshirthedonist, would be my impression.
Earlier I was told I shouldn’t think I know resistance to oppression better than the oppressed. I mocked that, and rightly. People who know how to resist oppression end up not oppressed anymore. You don’t ask obese people for diet advice. You as formerly obese people. Having a problem doesn’t magically gift you with insight into how to successfully solve it. The very fact you still have it suggests you lack that insight.
So, let me ask: What oppressed people, in a mostly free nation, ever managed to end their oppression by rioting? Did Asian-Americans go from a ghettoized, oppressed minority, routinely discriminated against, to so successful they’re routinely discriminated against, by rioting?
No. They were the targets of riots, not the instigators. They escaped poverty by hard work, not burning buildings down.
Yeah, the rioters had grievances people other than the rioters didn’t care about.
prove it. show us the poll data that says the individual “rioters” do not have legitimate concerns about police brutality.
Yeah, the rioters had grievances people other than the rioters didn’t care about.
prove it. show us the poll data that says the individual “rioters” do not have legitimate concerns about police brutality.
Yeah, the rioters had grievances people other than the rioters didn’t care about.
prove it. show us the poll data that says the individual “rioters” do not have legitimate concerns about police brutality.
Honestly, once somebody starts attacking innocent people, I don’t care what legitimate grievances they might have.
I’m sure the rioters might have had some legitmate concerns about police brutality, especially given that they were inclined to go about attracting the hostile attentions of the police. This isn’t what distinguished them from the non-rioters.
Rioting was.
Honestly, once somebody starts attacking innocent people, I don’t care what legitimate grievances they might have.
I’m sure the rioters might have had some legitmate concerns about police brutality, especially given that they were inclined to go about attracting the hostile attentions of the police. This isn’t what distinguished them from the non-rioters.
Rioting was.
Honestly, once somebody starts attacking innocent people, I don’t care what legitimate grievances they might have.
I’m sure the rioters might have had some legitmate concerns about police brutality, especially given that they were inclined to go about attracting the hostile attentions of the police. This isn’t what distinguished them from the non-rioters.
Rioting was.
What oppressed people, in a mostly free nation, ever managed to end their oppression by rioting?
The (R) election canvassers of Miami-Dade country, on November 19, 2000!
🙂
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Examples of riots that led to constructive results might include the Stonewall riots, Attica (although most of the reforms that came out of that are probably gone now), the Haymarket riot.
A lot of the early gains of organized labor were the result of violent direct action, including literal warfare.
So, it’s better if people don’t break stuff and light it on fire, but sometimes they do, and sometimes it actually furthers a constructive result.
I’m making no such claim in this case, I’m just answering your broader question.
What oppressed people, in a mostly free nation, ever managed to end their oppression by rioting?
The (R) election canvassers of Miami-Dade country, on November 19, 2000!
🙂
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Examples of riots that led to constructive results might include the Stonewall riots, Attica (although most of the reforms that came out of that are probably gone now), the Haymarket riot.
A lot of the early gains of organized labor were the result of violent direct action, including literal warfare.
So, it’s better if people don’t break stuff and light it on fire, but sometimes they do, and sometimes it actually furthers a constructive result.
I’m making no such claim in this case, I’m just answering your broader question.
What oppressed people, in a mostly free nation, ever managed to end their oppression by rioting?
The (R) election canvassers of Miami-Dade country, on November 19, 2000!
🙂
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Examples of riots that led to constructive results might include the Stonewall riots, Attica (although most of the reforms that came out of that are probably gone now), the Haymarket riot.
A lot of the early gains of organized labor were the result of violent direct action, including literal warfare.
So, it’s better if people don’t break stuff and light it on fire, but sometimes they do, and sometimes it actually furthers a constructive result.
I’m making no such claim in this case, I’m just answering your broader question.
What oppressed people, in a mostly free nation, ever managed to end their oppression by rioting?
the Boston Tea Party was a planned riot, complete with destruction and looting against merchants. these days, it would be called terrorism under the law.
What oppressed people, in a mostly free nation, ever managed to end their oppression by rioting?
the Boston Tea Party was a planned riot, complete with destruction and looting against merchants. these days, it would be called terrorism under the law.
What oppressed people, in a mostly free nation, ever managed to end their oppression by rioting?
the Boston Tea Party was a planned riot, complete with destruction and looting against merchants. these days, it would be called terrorism under the law.
“The (R) election canvassers of Miami-Dade country, on November 19, 2000!
🙂
Sorry, couldn’t resist.”
I know, but you’re surely aware that the polling station didn’t get burned down. More of a demonstration than a riot.
Heck, they didn’t even make off with the paperclips. A pity the rioters in Baltimore weren’t so restrained.
But, fair enough, apparently riots do help, if you’re doing other things, too.
“The (R) election canvassers of Miami-Dade country, on November 19, 2000!
🙂
Sorry, couldn’t resist.”
I know, but you’re surely aware that the polling station didn’t get burned down. More of a demonstration than a riot.
Heck, they didn’t even make off with the paperclips. A pity the rioters in Baltimore weren’t so restrained.
But, fair enough, apparently riots do help, if you’re doing other things, too.
“The (R) election canvassers of Miami-Dade country, on November 19, 2000!
🙂
Sorry, couldn’t resist.”
I know, but you’re surely aware that the polling station didn’t get burned down. More of a demonstration than a riot.
Heck, they didn’t even make off with the paperclips. A pity the rioters in Baltimore weren’t so restrained.
But, fair enough, apparently riots do help, if you’re doing other things, too.
As violent direct actions go during the pre-revolutionary period go, the Tea Party was kind of small-ish beer.
At various times, people were physically seized and imprisoned or had their homes and property destroyed, by pissed-off colonists.
Rioting as a form of civil disturbance has quite a long history in the US.
As violent direct actions go during the pre-revolutionary period go, the Tea Party was kind of small-ish beer.
At various times, people were physically seized and imprisoned or had their homes and property destroyed, by pissed-off colonists.
Rioting as a form of civil disturbance has quite a long history in the US.
As violent direct actions go during the pre-revolutionary period go, the Tea Party was kind of small-ish beer.
At various times, people were physically seized and imprisoned or had their homes and property destroyed, by pissed-off colonists.
Rioting as a form of civil disturbance has quite a long history in the US.
Rioting as a form of civil disturbance has quite a long history in the US.
just for starters, civil war draft riots, which see.
More of a demonstration than a riot.
The intent was to stop the recount, not to steal paper clips. The recount was suspended.
Rioting as a form of civil disturbance has quite a long history in the US.
just for starters, civil war draft riots, which see.
More of a demonstration than a riot.
The intent was to stop the recount, not to steal paper clips. The recount was suspended.
Rioting as a form of civil disturbance has quite a long history in the US.
just for starters, civil war draft riots, which see.
More of a demonstration than a riot.
The intent was to stop the recount, not to steal paper clips. The recount was suspended.
Who cares if I think I’m morally superior to looters? Hairshirthedonist, would be my impression.
I was talking about your sense of moral superiority over me, Brett, because I was too cowardly, in your opinion, to call the rioters “evil.”
Yeah, the rioters had grievances people other than the rioters didn’t care about. Like sporting goods stores not handing out Nike shoes for free.
and
I’m sure the rioters might have had some legitmate concerns about police brutality, especially given that they were inclined to go about attracting the hostile attentions of the police. This isn’t what distinguished them from the non-rioters.
Rioting was.
It is interesting how you write this sort of stuff that completely elides the question at hand. I (We?) get what distinguishes the rioters from the non-rioters. What I’d like to know is what you think of the legitimate grievances the non-rioters have, even if they happen to be some of the same ones the rioters have. Do you ignore them because of the rioters, or do you address them because of the non-rioters?
Do you give a crap about the grievances people in poor, black neighborhoods in places like Baltimore have? Or do you think everyone who lives in those places deserves what they get, whether they rioted or not?
Try responding to the actual question this time, not some question in your head that kinda, sorta looks like the actual question.
Who cares if I think I’m morally superior to looters? Hairshirthedonist, would be my impression.
I was talking about your sense of moral superiority over me, Brett, because I was too cowardly, in your opinion, to call the rioters “evil.”
Yeah, the rioters had grievances people other than the rioters didn’t care about. Like sporting goods stores not handing out Nike shoes for free.
and
I’m sure the rioters might have had some legitmate concerns about police brutality, especially given that they were inclined to go about attracting the hostile attentions of the police. This isn’t what distinguished them from the non-rioters.
Rioting was.
It is interesting how you write this sort of stuff that completely elides the question at hand. I (We?) get what distinguishes the rioters from the non-rioters. What I’d like to know is what you think of the legitimate grievances the non-rioters have, even if they happen to be some of the same ones the rioters have. Do you ignore them because of the rioters, or do you address them because of the non-rioters?
Do you give a crap about the grievances people in poor, black neighborhoods in places like Baltimore have? Or do you think everyone who lives in those places deserves what they get, whether they rioted or not?
Try responding to the actual question this time, not some question in your head that kinda, sorta looks like the actual question.
Who cares if I think I’m morally superior to looters? Hairshirthedonist, would be my impression.
I was talking about your sense of moral superiority over me, Brett, because I was too cowardly, in your opinion, to call the rioters “evil.”
Yeah, the rioters had grievances people other than the rioters didn’t care about. Like sporting goods stores not handing out Nike shoes for free.
and
I’m sure the rioters might have had some legitmate concerns about police brutality, especially given that they were inclined to go about attracting the hostile attentions of the police. This isn’t what distinguished them from the non-rioters.
Rioting was.
It is interesting how you write this sort of stuff that completely elides the question at hand. I (We?) get what distinguishes the rioters from the non-rioters. What I’d like to know is what you think of the legitimate grievances the non-rioters have, even if they happen to be some of the same ones the rioters have. Do you ignore them because of the rioters, or do you address them because of the non-rioters?
Do you give a crap about the grievances people in poor, black neighborhoods in places like Baltimore have? Or do you think everyone who lives in those places deserves what they get, whether they rioted or not?
Try responding to the actual question this time, not some question in your head that kinda, sorta looks like the actual question.
As violent direct actions go during the pre-revolutionary period go, the Tea Party was kind of small-ish beer.
still, it’s the one conservatives chose to use as the name for GOP v2.008.
As violent direct actions go during the pre-revolutionary period go, the Tea Party was kind of small-ish beer.
still, it’s the one conservatives chose to use as the name for GOP v2.008.
As violent direct actions go during the pre-revolutionary period go, the Tea Party was kind of small-ish beer.
still, it’s the one conservatives chose to use as the name for GOP v2.008.
still, it’s the one conservatives chose to use as the name for GOP v2.008.
Probably a good choice, I’m not I’d want to see what they’d make of tar and feathers.
In other news, it’s apparently not just humans who rise up against their oppressors.
still, it’s the one conservatives chose to use as the name for GOP v2.008.
Probably a good choice, I’m not I’d want to see what they’d make of tar and feathers.
In other news, it’s apparently not just humans who rise up against their oppressors.
still, it’s the one conservatives chose to use as the name for GOP v2.008.
Probably a good choice, I’m not I’d want to see what they’d make of tar and feathers.
In other news, it’s apparently not just humans who rise up against their oppressors.
“Do you give a crap about the grievances people in poor, black neighborhoods in places like Baltimore have?”
Sure do. Life can be hell for downtrodden minorities living in big cities that have been exclusively run by the Democratic party for almost half a century.
One of the reasons I advocate giving people a better chance to flee them.
“Do you give a crap about the grievances people in poor, black neighborhoods in places like Baltimore have?”
Sure do. Life can be hell for downtrodden minorities living in big cities that have been exclusively run by the Democratic party for almost half a century.
One of the reasons I advocate giving people a better chance to flee them.
“Do you give a crap about the grievances people in poor, black neighborhoods in places like Baltimore have?”
Sure do. Life can be hell for downtrodden minorities living in big cities that have been exclusively run by the Democratic party for almost half a century.
One of the reasons I advocate giving people a better chance to flee them.
I advocate giving people a better chance to flee them.
“People fleeing them” is one of the primary reasons for how they got to be the way they are.
Among other things, that’s billions of dollars of built infrastructure you’re throwing away, there.
I advocate making them better places to stay.
I advocate giving people a better chance to flee them.
“People fleeing them” is one of the primary reasons for how they got to be the way they are.
Among other things, that’s billions of dollars of built infrastructure you’re throwing away, there.
I advocate making them better places to stay.
I advocate giving people a better chance to flee them.
“People fleeing them” is one of the primary reasons for how they got to be the way they are.
Among other things, that’s billions of dollars of built infrastructure you’re throwing away, there.
I advocate making them better places to stay.
I advocate giving people a better chance to flee them.
Gosh, I wonder what on earth could be keeping them there?
Nonetheless, yet another argument for reparations.
I advocate giving people a better chance to flee them.
Gosh, I wonder what on earth could be keeping them there?
Nonetheless, yet another argument for reparations.
I advocate giving people a better chance to flee them.
Gosh, I wonder what on earth could be keeping them there?
Nonetheless, yet another argument for reparations.
Life can be hell for downtrodden minorities living in big cities that have been exclusively run by the Democratic party for almost half a century.
Forgive my ignorance. Could you, perhaps, supply some examples of cities which have been run by the Republican party for the past half century? Or even cities where administration has varied back and forth? Just so we can evaluate how much might be the problem of which party was running things, vs. how much might be a problem endemic to cities in general.
Thanks.
Life can be hell for downtrodden minorities living in big cities that have been exclusively run by the Democratic party for almost half a century.
Forgive my ignorance. Could you, perhaps, supply some examples of cities which have been run by the Republican party for the past half century? Or even cities where administration has varied back and forth? Just so we can evaluate how much might be the problem of which party was running things, vs. how much might be a problem endemic to cities in general.
Thanks.
Life can be hell for downtrodden minorities living in big cities that have been exclusively run by the Democratic party for almost half a century.
Forgive my ignorance. Could you, perhaps, supply some examples of cities which have been run by the Republican party for the past half century? Or even cities where administration has varied back and forth? Just so we can evaluate how much might be the problem of which party was running things, vs. how much might be a problem endemic to cities in general.
Thanks.
Indeed, what on earth could be keeping them there, that they could be justified in rioting, instead of just leaving? Walls? Machine gun nests? Secret police disappearing their relatives if they walk?
Ok, granted that last is vaguely plausible in Chigago, given recent revelations.
Nothing but being inculcated with a culture of hopelessness, and being told that everywhere the evul Republicans rule is worse.
Sure, a case for reparations, but I doubt the DNC is going to pay up.
“Among other things, that’s billions of dollars of built infrastructure you’re throwing away, there.”
Yeah, I’m a big fan of throwing away infrastructure instead of people.
Indeed, what on earth could be keeping them there, that they could be justified in rioting, instead of just leaving? Walls? Machine gun nests? Secret police disappearing their relatives if they walk?
Ok, granted that last is vaguely plausible in Chigago, given recent revelations.
Nothing but being inculcated with a culture of hopelessness, and being told that everywhere the evul Republicans rule is worse.
Sure, a case for reparations, but I doubt the DNC is going to pay up.
“Among other things, that’s billions of dollars of built infrastructure you’re throwing away, there.”
Yeah, I’m a big fan of throwing away infrastructure instead of people.
Indeed, what on earth could be keeping them there, that they could be justified in rioting, instead of just leaving? Walls? Machine gun nests? Secret police disappearing their relatives if they walk?
Ok, granted that last is vaguely plausible in Chigago, given recent revelations.
Nothing but being inculcated with a culture of hopelessness, and being told that everywhere the evul Republicans rule is worse.
Sure, a case for reparations, but I doubt the DNC is going to pay up.
“Among other things, that’s billions of dollars of built infrastructure you’re throwing away, there.”
Yeah, I’m a big fan of throwing away infrastructure instead of people.
were cities just awesome before this half-century of Democratic rule?
2015 – 50 = 1965.
yes indeed. everything was A.O.K. in US cities in 1965. no problems there. nothing at all like we have today. no sirree.
were cities just awesome before this half-century of Democratic rule?
2015 – 50 = 1965.
yes indeed. everything was A.O.K. in US cities in 1965. no problems there. nothing at all like we have today. no sirree.
were cities just awesome before this half-century of Democratic rule?
2015 – 50 = 1965.
yes indeed. everything was A.O.K. in US cities in 1965. no problems there. nothing at all like we have today. no sirree.
Is the Republican mayor an endangered species? Saying so for sure would be futile, but they are certainly rare in America’s biggest cities these days. Of the nation’s 35 most populous cities, 28 have Democratic mayors and 22 have had them for a very long time.
More strikingly, of the 13 big cities that were led by a Republican mayor at some point in the 21st century, just five still have one.
Indianapolis, which consists of both a city and a county, has elected Republican mayors for 36 out of the last 48 years. Miami, another city-county hybrid, has elected numerous Republicans thanks in part to a longstanding Republican lean among Cuban-Americans. The other three are Fort Worth, Oklahoma City and San Diego.
[…]
Bye, Bye GOP Mayors?: Republican mayors are rare in America’s big cities today. The few surviving ones have tips for getting into and staying in office.
Is the Republican mayor an endangered species? Saying so for sure would be futile, but they are certainly rare in America’s biggest cities these days. Of the nation’s 35 most populous cities, 28 have Democratic mayors and 22 have had them for a very long time.
More strikingly, of the 13 big cities that were led by a Republican mayor at some point in the 21st century, just five still have one.
Indianapolis, which consists of both a city and a county, has elected Republican mayors for 36 out of the last 48 years. Miami, another city-county hybrid, has elected numerous Republicans thanks in part to a longstanding Republican lean among Cuban-Americans. The other three are Fort Worth, Oklahoma City and San Diego.
[…]
Bye, Bye GOP Mayors?: Republican mayors are rare in America’s big cities today. The few surviving ones have tips for getting into and staying in office.
Is the Republican mayor an endangered species? Saying so for sure would be futile, but they are certainly rare in America’s biggest cities these days. Of the nation’s 35 most populous cities, 28 have Democratic mayors and 22 have had them for a very long time.
More strikingly, of the 13 big cities that were led by a Republican mayor at some point in the 21st century, just five still have one.
Indianapolis, which consists of both a city and a county, has elected Republican mayors for 36 out of the last 48 years. Miami, another city-county hybrid, has elected numerous Republicans thanks in part to a longstanding Republican lean among Cuban-Americans. The other three are Fort Worth, Oklahoma City and San Diego.
[…]
Bye, Bye GOP Mayors?: Republican mayors are rare in America’s big cities today. The few surviving ones have tips for getting into and staying in office.
Yeah, I’m a big fan of throwing away infrastructure instead of people.
A magnanimous pose, for sure, but as an actual choice, a false one.
Yeah, I’m a big fan of throwing away infrastructure instead of people.
A magnanimous pose, for sure, but as an actual choice, a false one.
Yeah, I’m a big fan of throwing away infrastructure instead of people.
A magnanimous pose, for sure, but as an actual choice, a false one.
Mesa, Arizona, for instance.
Might be a problem endemic to cities, but if it is, it’s clear Democrats don’t have the cure, and Republicans aren’t the problem.
Mesa, Arizona, for instance.
Might be a problem endemic to cities, but if it is, it’s clear Democrats don’t have the cure, and Republicans aren’t the problem.
Mesa, Arizona, for instance.
Might be a problem endemic to cities, but if it is, it’s clear Democrats don’t have the cure, and Republicans aren’t the problem.
Yet another opinion.
Yet another opinion.
Yet another opinion.
Indeed, what on earth could be keeping them there, that they could be justified in rioting, instead of just leaving?
What percentage of the people in Baltimore rioted? What percentage of those who rioted were old enough to decide for themselves where to live?
Nothing but being inculcated with a culture of hopelessness, and being told that everywhere the evul Republicans rule is worse.
Seriously? Being told to fear Republicans keeps people living in crappy neighborhoods?
Have you considered the option that they don’t have enough money to move or that they can’t afford to live anywhere else, even if they could move? Or even that they’d like to improve where they live, given that it’s their home, warts and all, rather than giving up and leaving?
Indeed, what on earth could be keeping them there, that they could be justified in rioting, instead of just leaving?
What percentage of the people in Baltimore rioted? What percentage of those who rioted were old enough to decide for themselves where to live?
Nothing but being inculcated with a culture of hopelessness, and being told that everywhere the evul Republicans rule is worse.
Seriously? Being told to fear Republicans keeps people living in crappy neighborhoods?
Have you considered the option that they don’t have enough money to move or that they can’t afford to live anywhere else, even if they could move? Or even that they’d like to improve where they live, given that it’s their home, warts and all, rather than giving up and leaving?
Indeed, what on earth could be keeping them there, that they could be justified in rioting, instead of just leaving?
What percentage of the people in Baltimore rioted? What percentage of those who rioted were old enough to decide for themselves where to live?
Nothing but being inculcated with a culture of hopelessness, and being told that everywhere the evul Republicans rule is worse.
Seriously? Being told to fear Republicans keeps people living in crappy neighborhoods?
Have you considered the option that they don’t have enough money to move or that they can’t afford to live anywhere else, even if they could move? Or even that they’d like to improve where they live, given that it’s their home, warts and all, rather than giving up and leaving?
“A magnanimous pose, for sure, but as an actual choice, a false one.”
Ghost towns from the Depression say, no.
“A magnanimous pose, for sure, but as an actual choice, a false one.”
Ghost towns from the Depression say, no.
“A magnanimous pose, for sure, but as an actual choice, a false one.”
Ghost towns from the Depression say, no.
Ghost towns from the Depression say, no.
I have no idea what your point is here.
Ghost towns from the Depression say, no.
I have no idea what your point is here.
Ghost towns from the Depression say, no.
I have no idea what your point is here.
“I have no idea what [Brett’s] point is here.”
The point is to distract from having to answer the question, posed over and over, of whether the violence would have been justified if directed at the police.
Yeah, we know your answer Brett; we just like to see you twisting in the wind, hoist by ideology and hypocrisy.
“I have no idea what [Brett’s] point is here.”
The point is to distract from having to answer the question, posed over and over, of whether the violence would have been justified if directed at the police.
Yeah, we know your answer Brett; we just like to see you twisting in the wind, hoist by ideology and hypocrisy.
“I have no idea what [Brett’s] point is here.”
The point is to distract from having to answer the question, posed over and over, of whether the violence would have been justified if directed at the police.
Yeah, we know your answer Brett; we just like to see you twisting in the wind, hoist by ideology and hypocrisy.
Might be a problem endemic to cities, but if it is, it’s clear Democrats don’t have the cure, and Republicans aren’t the problem.
Perhaps I misread your words. I thought you were arguing, with respect to city government, that Democrats were the problem. Rather than merely arguing that Republicans were not the problem and Democrats not the solution — a thesis that I do not recall being put forward here.
Might be a problem endemic to cities, but if it is, it’s clear Democrats don’t have the cure, and Republicans aren’t the problem.
Perhaps I misread your words. I thought you were arguing, with respect to city government, that Democrats were the problem. Rather than merely arguing that Republicans were not the problem and Democrats not the solution — a thesis that I do not recall being put forward here.
Might be a problem endemic to cities, but if it is, it’s clear Democrats don’t have the cure, and Republicans aren’t the problem.
Perhaps I misread your words. I thought you were arguing, with respect to city government, that Democrats were the problem. Rather than merely arguing that Republicans were not the problem and Democrats not the solution — a thesis that I do not recall being put forward here.
It is an interesting phenomenon that so many city governments are (D).
Even in conservative areas – Cincinnati, for example – the governments at the city level tend to be (D).
I don’t know what it means, or if it means anything. It’s just curious, as a data point.
It is an interesting phenomenon that so many city governments are (D).
Even in conservative areas – Cincinnati, for example – the governments at the city level tend to be (D).
I don’t know what it means, or if it means anything. It’s just curious, as a data point.
It is an interesting phenomenon that so many city governments are (D).
Even in conservative areas – Cincinnati, for example – the governments at the city level tend to be (D).
I don’t know what it means, or if it means anything. It’s just curious, as a data point.
“I have no idea what your point is here.”
Don’t doubt that a bit. The problem isn’t on my end.
“The point is to distract from having to answer the question, posed over and over, of whether the violence would have been justified if directed at the police.”
I’m not sure why I have to answer that question yet again.
I think violence against the police is very frequently justified, rarely prudent, and irrelevant in the context of looting and arson. But, yeah, plenty of things have been going down in our major, Democrat controlled cities, which represent ample justification for violence against selected police officers, particularly in as much as those Democratic city administrations don’t seem interested in fixing the problem.
Might be better directed at the people in control of the police, though that might not be prudent, either.
Again, don’t see what this has to do with looting stores, or beating up innocent bystanders.
“I have no idea what your point is here.”
Don’t doubt that a bit. The problem isn’t on my end.
“The point is to distract from having to answer the question, posed over and over, of whether the violence would have been justified if directed at the police.”
I’m not sure why I have to answer that question yet again.
I think violence against the police is very frequently justified, rarely prudent, and irrelevant in the context of looting and arson. But, yeah, plenty of things have been going down in our major, Democrat controlled cities, which represent ample justification for violence against selected police officers, particularly in as much as those Democratic city administrations don’t seem interested in fixing the problem.
Might be better directed at the people in control of the police, though that might not be prudent, either.
Again, don’t see what this has to do with looting stores, or beating up innocent bystanders.
“I have no idea what your point is here.”
Don’t doubt that a bit. The problem isn’t on my end.
“The point is to distract from having to answer the question, posed over and over, of whether the violence would have been justified if directed at the police.”
I’m not sure why I have to answer that question yet again.
I think violence against the police is very frequently justified, rarely prudent, and irrelevant in the context of looting and arson. But, yeah, plenty of things have been going down in our major, Democrat controlled cities, which represent ample justification for violence against selected police officers, particularly in as much as those Democratic city administrations don’t seem interested in fixing the problem.
Might be better directed at the people in control of the police, though that might not be prudent, either.
Again, don’t see what this has to do with looting stores, or beating up innocent bystanders.
Charles, that’s a great link.
And it fits what I know of another Republican (relatively) big city mayor. Mayor Ashley Swearengin has not only done a good job of starting to revive her city. She also holds positions on a variety of issues well to the left (center, actually) of the California Republican Party’s recent stances. As a result of which, she became the first Republican candidate for statewide office** in some years to actually come close to winning an election.
** Arnold Schwartzeneger gets an asterix, because he won the first time only by being the best known name on an open ballot, with no run-off required. Other than him, it’s been a couple of decades of drought.
Charles, that’s a great link.
And it fits what I know of another Republican (relatively) big city mayor. Mayor Ashley Swearengin has not only done a good job of starting to revive her city. She also holds positions on a variety of issues well to the left (center, actually) of the California Republican Party’s recent stances. As a result of which, she became the first Republican candidate for statewide office** in some years to actually come close to winning an election.
** Arnold Schwartzeneger gets an asterix, because he won the first time only by being the best known name on an open ballot, with no run-off required. Other than him, it’s been a couple of decades of drought.
Charles, that’s a great link.
And it fits what I know of another Republican (relatively) big city mayor. Mayor Ashley Swearengin has not only done a good job of starting to revive her city. She also holds positions on a variety of issues well to the left (center, actually) of the California Republican Party’s recent stances. As a result of which, she became the first Republican candidate for statewide office** in some years to actually come close to winning an election.
** Arnold Schwartzeneger gets an asterix, because he won the first time only by being the best known name on an open ballot, with no run-off required. Other than him, it’s been a couple of decades of drought.
whether the violence would have been justified if directed at the police.
In recent history, probably the most significant example of Those People – urban blacks – arming themselves in response to perceived police oppression was the Black Panthers, in CA, in the middle 60’s.
Concerned about police abuse, the Panthers would apparently monitor police band radio and go to places where cops would be confronting blacks. The purpose was more or less what the purpose of taking pictures and videos of police actions is now – to create a record of what happened. The goal wasn’t to shoot cops, but they would openly carry firearms when they did this.
This led to laws restricting open carry, and the Panthers responded by openly carrying firearms at the CA state capitol.
Which, in turn, prompted the passage of the Mulford Act.
I’m curious to know the thoughts of anyone here, regardless of your position on the gun thing in general, about the Panther’s use of civilian patrols specifically monitoring police activities. With or without firearms.
whether the violence would have been justified if directed at the police.
In recent history, probably the most significant example of Those People – urban blacks – arming themselves in response to perceived police oppression was the Black Panthers, in CA, in the middle 60’s.
Concerned about police abuse, the Panthers would apparently monitor police band radio and go to places where cops would be confronting blacks. The purpose was more or less what the purpose of taking pictures and videos of police actions is now – to create a record of what happened. The goal wasn’t to shoot cops, but they would openly carry firearms when they did this.
This led to laws restricting open carry, and the Panthers responded by openly carrying firearms at the CA state capitol.
Which, in turn, prompted the passage of the Mulford Act.
I’m curious to know the thoughts of anyone here, regardless of your position on the gun thing in general, about the Panther’s use of civilian patrols specifically monitoring police activities. With or without firearms.
whether the violence would have been justified if directed at the police.
In recent history, probably the most significant example of Those People – urban blacks – arming themselves in response to perceived police oppression was the Black Panthers, in CA, in the middle 60’s.
Concerned about police abuse, the Panthers would apparently monitor police band radio and go to places where cops would be confronting blacks. The purpose was more or less what the purpose of taking pictures and videos of police actions is now – to create a record of what happened. The goal wasn’t to shoot cops, but they would openly carry firearms when they did this.
This led to laws restricting open carry, and the Panthers responded by openly carrying firearms at the CA state capitol.
Which, in turn, prompted the passage of the Mulford Act.
I’m curious to know the thoughts of anyone here, regardless of your position on the gun thing in general, about the Panther’s use of civilian patrols specifically monitoring police activities. With or without firearms.
Don’t doubt that a bit. The problem isn’t on my end.
I’m filing this under “non-responsive”.
Don’t doubt that a bit. The problem isn’t on my end.
I’m filing this under “non-responsive”.
Don’t doubt that a bit. The problem isn’t on my end.
I’m filing this under “non-responsive”.
“I think violence against the police is very frequently justified”
Good, we’ll just have to make sure you’re on the jury of accused cop-killers.
“I think violence against the police is very frequently justified”
Good, we’ll just have to make sure you’re on the jury of accused cop-killers.
“I think violence against the police is very frequently justified”
Good, we’ll just have to make sure you’re on the jury of accused cop-killers.
Like I’ve got any chance of getting on a jury in such a case. 5 minutes googling me, and no prosecutor in the country would permit me on a jury in his case. I’m a jury nulification advocate, remember?
Yeah, I’d have no problem at all with self defense against a police officer.
Again, what’s this got to do with a riot against innocent store owners with portable merchandise? They didn’t stage a riot at the police station, they did it at the mall.
More stuff to walk away with there.
Like I’ve got any chance of getting on a jury in such a case. 5 minutes googling me, and no prosecutor in the country would permit me on a jury in his case. I’m a jury nulification advocate, remember?
Yeah, I’d have no problem at all with self defense against a police officer.
Again, what’s this got to do with a riot against innocent store owners with portable merchandise? They didn’t stage a riot at the police station, they did it at the mall.
More stuff to walk away with there.
Like I’ve got any chance of getting on a jury in such a case. 5 minutes googling me, and no prosecutor in the country would permit me on a jury in his case. I’m a jury nulification advocate, remember?
Yeah, I’d have no problem at all with self defense against a police officer.
Again, what’s this got to do with a riot against innocent store owners with portable merchandise? They didn’t stage a riot at the police station, they did it at the mall.
More stuff to walk away with there.
I’m curious to know the thoughts of anyone here, regardless of your position on the gun thing in general, about the Panther’s use of civilian patrols specifically monitoring police activities.
I think it was a good thing, although honestly I’m a little at a loss as to how to measure overall effectiveness.
Civilian oversight of the government is essential. That includes the police.
Carrying guns? Honestly, given how well some officers respond to oversight, that was probably prudent.
I’m curious to know the thoughts of anyone here, regardless of your position on the gun thing in general, about the Panther’s use of civilian patrols specifically monitoring police activities.
I think it was a good thing, although honestly I’m a little at a loss as to how to measure overall effectiveness.
Civilian oversight of the government is essential. That includes the police.
Carrying guns? Honestly, given how well some officers respond to oversight, that was probably prudent.
I’m curious to know the thoughts of anyone here, regardless of your position on the gun thing in general, about the Panther’s use of civilian patrols specifically monitoring police activities.
I think it was a good thing, although honestly I’m a little at a loss as to how to measure overall effectiveness.
Civilian oversight of the government is essential. That includes the police.
Carrying guns? Honestly, given how well some officers respond to oversight, that was probably prudent.
Yeah, I’ve got a lot less problem with the Black Panthers carring guns while confronting police, than carrying billy clubs while confronting voters.
Yeah, I’ve got a lot less problem with the Black Panthers carring guns while confronting police, than carrying billy clubs while confronting voters.
Yeah, I’ve got a lot less problem with the Black Panthers carring guns while confronting police, than carrying billy clubs while confronting voters.
I had no idea what the comment about ghost towns from the depression was supposed to mean, either. I didn’t feel like bothering to ask, but the problem wasn’t on Brett’s end, so there.
I had no idea what the comment about ghost towns from the depression was supposed to mean, either. I didn’t feel like bothering to ask, but the problem wasn’t on Brett’s end, so there.
I had no idea what the comment about ghost towns from the depression was supposed to mean, either. I didn’t feel like bothering to ask, but the problem wasn’t on Brett’s end, so there.
Again, what’s this got to do with a riot against innocent store owners with portable merchandise?
Nothing. It has nothing to do with a riot against innocent store owners with portable merchandise.
It was a different question.
As far as I can tell, the person most intent on discussing rioting and destruction of private property is you.
The rest of us appear to be interested in other things.
Again, what’s this got to do with a riot against innocent store owners with portable merchandise?
Nothing. It has nothing to do with a riot against innocent store owners with portable merchandise.
It was a different question.
As far as I can tell, the person most intent on discussing rioting and destruction of private property is you.
The rest of us appear to be interested in other things.
Again, what’s this got to do with a riot against innocent store owners with portable merchandise?
Nothing. It has nothing to do with a riot against innocent store owners with portable merchandise.
It was a different question.
As far as I can tell, the person most intent on discussing rioting and destruction of private property is you.
The rest of us appear to be interested in other things.
Carrying guns? Honestly, given how well some officers respond to oversight, that was probably prudent.
Perhaps.
and perhaps not.
Carrying guns? Honestly, given how well some officers respond to oversight, that was probably prudent.
Perhaps.
and perhaps not.
Carrying guns? Honestly, given how well some officers respond to oversight, that was probably prudent.
Perhaps.
and perhaps not.
the problem wasn’t on Brett’s end
No, it’s no longer in Brett’s lap, because he dropped it in our laps and walked away.
Screw that.
the problem wasn’t on Brett’s end
No, it’s no longer in Brett’s lap, because he dropped it in our laps and walked away.
Screw that.
the problem wasn’t on Brett’s end
No, it’s no longer in Brett’s lap, because he dropped it in our laps and walked away.
Screw that.
I had no idea what the comment about ghost towns from the depression was supposed to mean, either.
I believe it was cited as precedent for people up and leaving when there’s no longer economic opportunity in an area. Not sure that really maps to a city the size of Baltimore/Detroit, etc.
I had no idea what the comment about ghost towns from the depression was supposed to mean, either.
I believe it was cited as precedent for people up and leaving when there’s no longer economic opportunity in an area. Not sure that really maps to a city the size of Baltimore/Detroit, etc.
I had no idea what the comment about ghost towns from the depression was supposed to mean, either.
I believe it was cited as precedent for people up and leaving when there’s no longer economic opportunity in an area. Not sure that really maps to a city the size of Baltimore/Detroit, etc.
“As far as I can tell, the person most intent on discussing rioting and destruction of private property is you.”
Well, sorry, I thought we were talking about the Baltimore riots.
“No, it’s no longer in Brett’s lap, because he dropped it in our laps and walked away.”
You seriously don’t see the connection between chosing to sacrifice infrastructure instead of people, and ghost towns? Here’s a clue: Ghost towns are infrastructure.
How many lives got wasted in Detroit, because people stayed there, instead of leaving? Screw all that infrastructure. If the parents and grandparents of the poor in Detroit had left when the getting was good, they’d be better off now.
The people running cities don’t like losing population, even if it’s population so poor they cost more in services than they produce in tax revenues. Because they’ll be compensated for those losses by the larger society.
The result is we have a system for dealing with the poor that’s mostly intended to keep them where they are, even if that keeps them poor, instead of helping them leave for someplace where they’d have better prospects.
No, nothing was keeping those people to suffer in Baltimore, except that they were being paid, badly, to stay there. But enough that Newton’s 1st law kept them there.
Didn’t have that during the Depression, so people left when a place had no jobs, and you got ghost towns, and people living someplace else with their dignity and independence preserved.
Don’t think tragedy when you see a ghost town. Think, “Smart choice!”
“As far as I can tell, the person most intent on discussing rioting and destruction of private property is you.”
Well, sorry, I thought we were talking about the Baltimore riots.
“No, it’s no longer in Brett’s lap, because he dropped it in our laps and walked away.”
You seriously don’t see the connection between chosing to sacrifice infrastructure instead of people, and ghost towns? Here’s a clue: Ghost towns are infrastructure.
How many lives got wasted in Detroit, because people stayed there, instead of leaving? Screw all that infrastructure. If the parents and grandparents of the poor in Detroit had left when the getting was good, they’d be better off now.
The people running cities don’t like losing population, even if it’s population so poor they cost more in services than they produce in tax revenues. Because they’ll be compensated for those losses by the larger society.
The result is we have a system for dealing with the poor that’s mostly intended to keep them where they are, even if that keeps them poor, instead of helping them leave for someplace where they’d have better prospects.
No, nothing was keeping those people to suffer in Baltimore, except that they were being paid, badly, to stay there. But enough that Newton’s 1st law kept them there.
Didn’t have that during the Depression, so people left when a place had no jobs, and you got ghost towns, and people living someplace else with their dignity and independence preserved.
Don’t think tragedy when you see a ghost town. Think, “Smart choice!”
“As far as I can tell, the person most intent on discussing rioting and destruction of private property is you.”
Well, sorry, I thought we were talking about the Baltimore riots.
“No, it’s no longer in Brett’s lap, because he dropped it in our laps and walked away.”
You seriously don’t see the connection between chosing to sacrifice infrastructure instead of people, and ghost towns? Here’s a clue: Ghost towns are infrastructure.
How many lives got wasted in Detroit, because people stayed there, instead of leaving? Screw all that infrastructure. If the parents and grandparents of the poor in Detroit had left when the getting was good, they’d be better off now.
The people running cities don’t like losing population, even if it’s population so poor they cost more in services than they produce in tax revenues. Because they’ll be compensated for those losses by the larger society.
The result is we have a system for dealing with the poor that’s mostly intended to keep them where they are, even if that keeps them poor, instead of helping them leave for someplace where they’d have better prospects.
No, nothing was keeping those people to suffer in Baltimore, except that they were being paid, badly, to stay there. But enough that Newton’s 1st law kept them there.
Didn’t have that during the Depression, so people left when a place had no jobs, and you got ghost towns, and people living someplace else with their dignity and independence preserved.
Don’t think tragedy when you see a ghost town. Think, “Smart choice!”
and perhaps not.
You’re going to have to connect the dots for me between an armed raid, which according to your link was extremely one-sided, and the situation russell described.
and perhaps not.
You’re going to have to connect the dots for me between an armed raid, which according to your link was extremely one-sided, and the situation russell described.
and perhaps not.
You’re going to have to connect the dots for me between an armed raid, which according to your link was extremely one-sided, and the situation russell described.
5 minutes googling me, and no prosecutor in the country would permit me on a jury in his case.
What would a prosecutor have against a hockey player? 🙂
5 minutes googling me, and no prosecutor in the country would permit me on a jury in his case.
What would a prosecutor have against a hockey player? 🙂
5 minutes googling me, and no prosecutor in the country would permit me on a jury in his case.
What would a prosecutor have against a hockey player? 🙂
Wow.
Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday asked the State Guard to monitor a U.S. military training exercise dubbed “Jade Helm 15” amid Internet-fueled suspicions that the war simulation is really a hostile military takeover.
Wow.
Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday asked the State Guard to monitor a U.S. military training exercise dubbed “Jade Helm 15” amid Internet-fueled suspicions that the war simulation is really a hostile military takeover.
Wow.
Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday asked the State Guard to monitor a U.S. military training exercise dubbed “Jade Helm 15” amid Internet-fueled suspicions that the war simulation is really a hostile military takeover.
It’s not that cities like Baltimore and Detroit don’t have the potential for economic opportunity. It’s that the current stakeholders in the status quo have and will fight it tooth and nail.
It’s not that cities like Baltimore and Detroit don’t have the potential for economic opportunity. It’s that the current stakeholders in the status quo have and will fight it tooth and nail.
It’s not that cities like Baltimore and Detroit don’t have the potential for economic opportunity. It’s that the current stakeholders in the status quo have and will fight it tooth and nail.
Wow
it gets even better.
Wow
it gets even better.
Wow
it gets even better.
Didn’t have that during the Depression, so people left when a place had no jobs, and you got ghost town
and where are all these jobs today? where are the millions of unfilled jobs? where are the hundreds of thousands of employers itching to hire all these presumably-low-skill workers?
nowhere, that’s where.
Didn’t have that during the Depression, so people left when a place had no jobs, and you got ghost town
and where are all these jobs today? where are the millions of unfilled jobs? where are the hundreds of thousands of employers itching to hire all these presumably-low-skill workers?
nowhere, that’s where.
Didn’t have that during the Depression, so people left when a place had no jobs, and you got ghost town
and where are all these jobs today? where are the millions of unfilled jobs? where are the hundreds of thousands of employers itching to hire all these presumably-low-skill workers?
nowhere, that’s where.
You seriously don’t see the connection between chosing to sacrifice infrastructure instead of people, and ghost towns?
That connection is clear.
What your reply fails to do is address my comment, which was that the choice between preserving infrastructure and helping people is a false one.
Rather than explain why it’s better encourage people to simply leave blighted areas, rather than invest in those areas, you cite examples, from 80 years ago, of people responding to depressed economic circumstances by leaving wherever it is they lived.
So, we end up with this sequence of comments:
Brett: the best solution to blighted urban areas is for people to leave them.
russell: I disagree, IMO it makes more sense to rejuvenate the blighted areas.
Brett: Yeah, but people left blighted areas during the Depression.
Hence, my comment that your point was obscure. In other words, how does the fact that people moved away from poverty stricken areas 80 years ago make the case that the best path forward for people in, for instance, Baltimore is to move somewhere else?
For one thing, it wasn’t always so great for people to move from wherever they lived to somewhere else 80 years ago.
Do you know any people who did that? I do. It wasn’t always so great. Dignity and independence were not always preserved.
And presenting it as a choice between “saving people” vs “saving infrastructure” is a false choice. At best it’s a self-serving attempt to reframe the issue so as to flatter yourself by making it sound like you, uniquely, are concerned about the people involved.
You seriously don’t see the connection between chosing to sacrifice infrastructure instead of people, and ghost towns?
That connection is clear.
What your reply fails to do is address my comment, which was that the choice between preserving infrastructure and helping people is a false one.
Rather than explain why it’s better encourage people to simply leave blighted areas, rather than invest in those areas, you cite examples, from 80 years ago, of people responding to depressed economic circumstances by leaving wherever it is they lived.
So, we end up with this sequence of comments:
Brett: the best solution to blighted urban areas is for people to leave them.
russell: I disagree, IMO it makes more sense to rejuvenate the blighted areas.
Brett: Yeah, but people left blighted areas during the Depression.
Hence, my comment that your point was obscure. In other words, how does the fact that people moved away from poverty stricken areas 80 years ago make the case that the best path forward for people in, for instance, Baltimore is to move somewhere else?
For one thing, it wasn’t always so great for people to move from wherever they lived to somewhere else 80 years ago.
Do you know any people who did that? I do. It wasn’t always so great. Dignity and independence were not always preserved.
And presenting it as a choice between “saving people” vs “saving infrastructure” is a false choice. At best it’s a self-serving attempt to reframe the issue so as to flatter yourself by making it sound like you, uniquely, are concerned about the people involved.
You seriously don’t see the connection between chosing to sacrifice infrastructure instead of people, and ghost towns?
That connection is clear.
What your reply fails to do is address my comment, which was that the choice between preserving infrastructure and helping people is a false one.
Rather than explain why it’s better encourage people to simply leave blighted areas, rather than invest in those areas, you cite examples, from 80 years ago, of people responding to depressed economic circumstances by leaving wherever it is they lived.
So, we end up with this sequence of comments:
Brett: the best solution to blighted urban areas is for people to leave them.
russell: I disagree, IMO it makes more sense to rejuvenate the blighted areas.
Brett: Yeah, but people left blighted areas during the Depression.
Hence, my comment that your point was obscure. In other words, how does the fact that people moved away from poverty stricken areas 80 years ago make the case that the best path forward for people in, for instance, Baltimore is to move somewhere else?
For one thing, it wasn’t always so great for people to move from wherever they lived to somewhere else 80 years ago.
Do you know any people who did that? I do. It wasn’t always so great. Dignity and independence were not always preserved.
And presenting it as a choice between “saving people” vs “saving infrastructure” is a false choice. At best it’s a self-serving attempt to reframe the issue so as to flatter yourself by making it sound like you, uniquely, are concerned about the people involved.
“What your reply fails to do is address my comment, which was that the choice between preserving infrastructure and helping people is a false one.”
No, I don’t think it’s a false choice. With different people in charge of those areas, it might be. But getting up and walking away isn’t a coordination problem, putting good people in charge when the bad people want to stay in charge, is.
I really dislike solutions to problems that require agreement to implement. Especially when they’re long standing problems, which suggests agreement won’t be achieved.
“What your reply fails to do is address my comment, which was that the choice between preserving infrastructure and helping people is a false one.”
No, I don’t think it’s a false choice. With different people in charge of those areas, it might be. But getting up and walking away isn’t a coordination problem, putting good people in charge when the bad people want to stay in charge, is.
I really dislike solutions to problems that require agreement to implement. Especially when they’re long standing problems, which suggests agreement won’t be achieved.
“What your reply fails to do is address my comment, which was that the choice between preserving infrastructure and helping people is a false one.”
No, I don’t think it’s a false choice. With different people in charge of those areas, it might be. But getting up and walking away isn’t a coordination problem, putting good people in charge when the bad people want to stay in charge, is.
I really dislike solutions to problems that require agreement to implement. Especially when they’re long standing problems, which suggests agreement won’t be achieved.
Don’t think tragedy when you see a ghost town. Think, “Smart choice!”
I don’t think you understand what russell means by “false choice.” Abandoning infrastructure or abandoning people, as you put it, are two of the available options, but they aren’t the only two. That some people at some point did choose to abandon towns (i.e. infrastructure), rather than stay and, supposedly, be abandoned themselves, doesn’t change the fact that there are other options, even if there weren’t other options in towns that turned out to be ghost towns because of the Great Depression.
We’re not talking about smaller towns (some of which may have sprung up almost as fast as they were abandoned), and it isn’t the Great Depression.
So the relevance still eludes me.
Don’t think tragedy when you see a ghost town. Think, “Smart choice!”
I don’t think you understand what russell means by “false choice.” Abandoning infrastructure or abandoning people, as you put it, are two of the available options, but they aren’t the only two. That some people at some point did choose to abandon towns (i.e. infrastructure), rather than stay and, supposedly, be abandoned themselves, doesn’t change the fact that there are other options, even if there weren’t other options in towns that turned out to be ghost towns because of the Great Depression.
We’re not talking about smaller towns (some of which may have sprung up almost as fast as they were abandoned), and it isn’t the Great Depression.
So the relevance still eludes me.
Don’t think tragedy when you see a ghost town. Think, “Smart choice!”
I don’t think you understand what russell means by “false choice.” Abandoning infrastructure or abandoning people, as you put it, are two of the available options, but they aren’t the only two. That some people at some point did choose to abandon towns (i.e. infrastructure), rather than stay and, supposedly, be abandoned themselves, doesn’t change the fact that there are other options, even if there weren’t other options in towns that turned out to be ghost towns because of the Great Depression.
We’re not talking about smaller towns (some of which may have sprung up almost as fast as they were abandoned), and it isn’t the Great Depression.
So the relevance still eludes me.
Late to the party again. I really need to refresh, after reading a bunch of comments, before I comment.
Late to the party again. I really need to refresh, after reading a bunch of comments, before I comment.
Late to the party again. I really need to refresh, after reading a bunch of comments, before I comment.
I really dislike solutions to problems that require agreement to implement.
That’s fine. And, your policy preferences reflect your personal preferences, which is also fine.
The range of options that are available that will address things like “this entire industry moved to another continent” which also don’t require agreement are fairly limited.
So, those of us who aren’t averse to having agreement be part of the mix will likely be inclined to cast a wider net.
I really dislike solutions to problems that require agreement to implement.
That’s fine. And, your policy preferences reflect your personal preferences, which is also fine.
The range of options that are available that will address things like “this entire industry moved to another continent” which also don’t require agreement are fairly limited.
So, those of us who aren’t averse to having agreement be part of the mix will likely be inclined to cast a wider net.
I really dislike solutions to problems that require agreement to implement.
That’s fine. And, your policy preferences reflect your personal preferences, which is also fine.
The range of options that are available that will address things like “this entire industry moved to another continent” which also don’t require agreement are fairly limited.
So, those of us who aren’t averse to having agreement be part of the mix will likely be inclined to cast a wider net.
Wow, indeed. It’s like the Governor of Texas didn’t consider that, if there was a plan for a military takeover of Texas, nationalizing the National Guard (i.e. moving them under control and command of the Army) would be the first thing the Federal government would do.
But then, perhaps Texas doesn’t teach much detail about the history of the Civil Rights movement. And how the Feds dealt with governors who were attempting to use the National Guard to enforce segregation in defiance of Federal law.
Wow, indeed. It’s like the Governor of Texas didn’t consider that, if there was a plan for a military takeover of Texas, nationalizing the National Guard (i.e. moving them under control and command of the Army) would be the first thing the Federal government would do.
But then, perhaps Texas doesn’t teach much detail about the history of the Civil Rights movement. And how the Feds dealt with governors who were attempting to use the National Guard to enforce segregation in defiance of Federal law.
Wow, indeed. It’s like the Governor of Texas didn’t consider that, if there was a plan for a military takeover of Texas, nationalizing the National Guard (i.e. moving them under control and command of the Army) would be the first thing the Federal government would do.
But then, perhaps Texas doesn’t teach much detail about the history of the Civil Rights movement. And how the Feds dealt with governors who were attempting to use the National Guard to enforce segregation in defiance of Federal law.
Brett: Honestly, once somebody starts attacking innocent people, I don’t care what legitimate grievances they might have.
I assume this applies to the police in Baltimore, Ferguson, and other American cities. Right, Brett?
(And no, you can’t justify attacking innocent people because somebody else was throwing rocks or smashing windows. Innocent is innocent.)
Brett: Honestly, once somebody starts attacking innocent people, I don’t care what legitimate grievances they might have.
I assume this applies to the police in Baltimore, Ferguson, and other American cities. Right, Brett?
(And no, you can’t justify attacking innocent people because somebody else was throwing rocks or smashing windows. Innocent is innocent.)
Brett: Honestly, once somebody starts attacking innocent people, I don’t care what legitimate grievances they might have.
I assume this applies to the police in Baltimore, Ferguson, and other American cities. Right, Brett?
(And no, you can’t justify attacking innocent people because somebody else was throwing rocks or smashing windows. Innocent is innocent.)
Gang warfare
Gang warfare
Gang warfare
*href
Not, for example, hraf. Fixed.
*href
Not, for example, hraf. Fixed.
*href
Not, for example, hraf. Fixed.
thanks. it looked wrong, so i posted it then took a nap. now it looks ok! strange, that.
thanks. it looked wrong, so i posted it then took a nap. now it looks ok! strange, that.
thanks. it looked wrong, so i posted it then took a nap. now it looks ok! strange, that.
“Abandoning infrastructure or abandoning people, as you put it, are two of the available options, but they aren’t the only two.”
Who’s making the choice? It ain’t you. Or me.
Because for fifty years, they’ve been abandoning the people. And you expect that, suddenly, they’re going to switch to the optimum solution, that preserves both? (Assuming they have the slightest idea what it is.) Why do you believe this?
I believe they’ve been making the choice that abandons the people for fifty years, because they see it as in their own interests, and they’re not going to suddenly change, so the realistic thing to do is aid those people in removing themselves from being subject to those hostile choices.
You can change Baltimore, Detroit, Flint, and so forth. It doesn’t violate any laws of physics I know of. But you haven’t in half a century, so why do you expect to?
Or you can help people escape. THAT you can do tomorrow, and you don’t need the power structures of those cities to agree with you to do it.
Why sacrifice all those people to your determination to achieve the improbable optimum solution? Save them, instead.
This, I’ve long been convinced, is the real divide between liberal and conservative. One side is fighting to achieve the best possible outcome, at the cost of making the worst possible outcome more likely. The other is fighting to prevent the worst possible outcome, at the cost of making the best possible outcome less likely.
Since the worst possible outcome precludes any future positive outcomes, I’m firmly in the latter camp.
“I assume this applies to the police in Baltimore, Ferguson, and other American cities. Right, Brett?”
Why did I even bother posting this comment? Of course it does. I’ve been saying this over and over: Violence against police is frequently justified. Why? Because they frequently are violent themselves for no good reason.
“Abandoning infrastructure or abandoning people, as you put it, are two of the available options, but they aren’t the only two.”
Who’s making the choice? It ain’t you. Or me.
Because for fifty years, they’ve been abandoning the people. And you expect that, suddenly, they’re going to switch to the optimum solution, that preserves both? (Assuming they have the slightest idea what it is.) Why do you believe this?
I believe they’ve been making the choice that abandons the people for fifty years, because they see it as in their own interests, and they’re not going to suddenly change, so the realistic thing to do is aid those people in removing themselves from being subject to those hostile choices.
You can change Baltimore, Detroit, Flint, and so forth. It doesn’t violate any laws of physics I know of. But you haven’t in half a century, so why do you expect to?
Or you can help people escape. THAT you can do tomorrow, and you don’t need the power structures of those cities to agree with you to do it.
Why sacrifice all those people to your determination to achieve the improbable optimum solution? Save them, instead.
This, I’ve long been convinced, is the real divide between liberal and conservative. One side is fighting to achieve the best possible outcome, at the cost of making the worst possible outcome more likely. The other is fighting to prevent the worst possible outcome, at the cost of making the best possible outcome less likely.
Since the worst possible outcome precludes any future positive outcomes, I’m firmly in the latter camp.
“I assume this applies to the police in Baltimore, Ferguson, and other American cities. Right, Brett?”
Why did I even bother posting this comment? Of course it does. I’ve been saying this over and over: Violence against police is frequently justified. Why? Because they frequently are violent themselves for no good reason.
“Abandoning infrastructure or abandoning people, as you put it, are two of the available options, but they aren’t the only two.”
Who’s making the choice? It ain’t you. Or me.
Because for fifty years, they’ve been abandoning the people. And you expect that, suddenly, they’re going to switch to the optimum solution, that preserves both? (Assuming they have the slightest idea what it is.) Why do you believe this?
I believe they’ve been making the choice that abandons the people for fifty years, because they see it as in their own interests, and they’re not going to suddenly change, so the realistic thing to do is aid those people in removing themselves from being subject to those hostile choices.
You can change Baltimore, Detroit, Flint, and so forth. It doesn’t violate any laws of physics I know of. But you haven’t in half a century, so why do you expect to?
Or you can help people escape. THAT you can do tomorrow, and you don’t need the power structures of those cities to agree with you to do it.
Why sacrifice all those people to your determination to achieve the improbable optimum solution? Save them, instead.
This, I’ve long been convinced, is the real divide between liberal and conservative. One side is fighting to achieve the best possible outcome, at the cost of making the worst possible outcome more likely. The other is fighting to prevent the worst possible outcome, at the cost of making the best possible outcome less likely.
Since the worst possible outcome precludes any future positive outcomes, I’m firmly in the latter camp.
“I assume this applies to the police in Baltimore, Ferguson, and other American cities. Right, Brett?”
Why did I even bother posting this comment? Of course it does. I’ve been saying this over and over: Violence against police is frequently justified. Why? Because they frequently are violent themselves for no good reason.
Or you can help people escape. THAT you can do tomorrow, and you don’t need the power structures of those cities to agree with you to do it.
How, exactly? Serious question.
Also, where are the conservative communities champing at the bit to accept a large influx of jobless and completely destitute (remember, they’re abandoning any real estate they might have, and very possibly don’t have the resources to move their household possessions, but abandoning them is better than staying put, right? Even when you’re living at best paycheck to paycheck and have no savings?) inner-city urban refugees, primarily of other-than-European extraction? Because if there’s no place for them to go where their life won’t be significantly worse than it is now, telling them that they need to leave is laughable.
Or you can help people escape. THAT you can do tomorrow, and you don’t need the power structures of those cities to agree with you to do it.
How, exactly? Serious question.
Also, where are the conservative communities champing at the bit to accept a large influx of jobless and completely destitute (remember, they’re abandoning any real estate they might have, and very possibly don’t have the resources to move their household possessions, but abandoning them is better than staying put, right? Even when you’re living at best paycheck to paycheck and have no savings?) inner-city urban refugees, primarily of other-than-European extraction? Because if there’s no place for them to go where their life won’t be significantly worse than it is now, telling them that they need to leave is laughable.
Or you can help people escape. THAT you can do tomorrow, and you don’t need the power structures of those cities to agree with you to do it.
How, exactly? Serious question.
Also, where are the conservative communities champing at the bit to accept a large influx of jobless and completely destitute (remember, they’re abandoning any real estate they might have, and very possibly don’t have the resources to move their household possessions, but abandoning them is better than staying put, right? Even when you’re living at best paycheck to paycheck and have no savings?) inner-city urban refugees, primarily of other-than-European extraction? Because if there’s no place for them to go where their life won’t be significantly worse than it is now, telling them that they need to leave is laughable.
NV, are you seriously arguing that it isn’t their fault for staying where they are, rather than tying to move to somewhere that absolutely doesn’t want them? And will probably roll out their own police forces to keep them away?
I mean, look at it logically. If people moving from where they have no prospects to where they have better prospects is the right thing to do for those in inner city slums, then it would have to be the right thing to do for would-be immigrants. And so any talk about “securing our borders” would be obviously just wrong. Wouldn’t it?
So anyone who argues for securing our borders to keep out those with minimal skills must, to be consistent, oppose encouraging the poor to move out of cities which are disaster zones. Right? Right?
NV, are you seriously arguing that it isn’t their fault for staying where they are, rather than tying to move to somewhere that absolutely doesn’t want them? And will probably roll out their own police forces to keep them away?
I mean, look at it logically. If people moving from where they have no prospects to where they have better prospects is the right thing to do for those in inner city slums, then it would have to be the right thing to do for would-be immigrants. And so any talk about “securing our borders” would be obviously just wrong. Wouldn’t it?
So anyone who argues for securing our borders to keep out those with minimal skills must, to be consistent, oppose encouraging the poor to move out of cities which are disaster zones. Right? Right?
NV, are you seriously arguing that it isn’t their fault for staying where they are, rather than tying to move to somewhere that absolutely doesn’t want them? And will probably roll out their own police forces to keep them away?
I mean, look at it logically. If people moving from where they have no prospects to where they have better prospects is the right thing to do for those in inner city slums, then it would have to be the right thing to do for would-be immigrants. And so any talk about “securing our borders” would be obviously just wrong. Wouldn’t it?
So anyone who argues for securing our borders to keep out those with minimal skills must, to be consistent, oppose encouraging the poor to move out of cities which are disaster zones. Right? Right?
Yeah, I’m also wondering where those generous, tidy, ordered communities are, that have been saying “Man, if we only had some URBAN POOR, we’d be doing so much better!”
I’m probably just not reading the right magazines.
Yeah, I’m also wondering where those generous, tidy, ordered communities are, that have been saying “Man, if we only had some URBAN POOR, we’d be doing so much better!”
I’m probably just not reading the right magazines.
Yeah, I’m also wondering where those generous, tidy, ordered communities are, that have been saying “Man, if we only had some URBAN POOR, we’d be doing so much better!”
I’m probably just not reading the right magazines.
“rather than tying to move to somewhere that absolutely doesn’t want them?”
And I was made fun of for that, “and being told that everywhere the evul Republicans rule is worse.” remark. Yet, here it is, in it’s full glory. Stay where you are, urban poor, no matter how hopeless the situation is: Nobody anywhere else will accept you!
What bunk. Conservative areas will generally accept anybody who’s in the country legally, and is willing to work for a living, instead of expecting others to support them.
Granted, the urban poor have been crafted into a culture of poverty by the elite of the areas they’re currently mired in. They really do need some help in doing something about that. And, haven’t I made proposals of how to accomplish that?
“So anyone who argues for securing our borders to keep out those with minimal skills must, to be consistent, oppose encouraging the poor to move out of cities which are disaster zones. Right? Right?”
Wrong. Because the poor who are American citizens are already members of our polity, while the poor who are citizens of other countries are NOT members of our polity. They have their own society that’s supposed to have that relationship with them.
Just because we should help our own downtrodden, doesn’t mean we should import other countries’ downtrodden, just to make the job harder.
“rather than tying to move to somewhere that absolutely doesn’t want them?”
And I was made fun of for that, “and being told that everywhere the evul Republicans rule is worse.” remark. Yet, here it is, in it’s full glory. Stay where you are, urban poor, no matter how hopeless the situation is: Nobody anywhere else will accept you!
What bunk. Conservative areas will generally accept anybody who’s in the country legally, and is willing to work for a living, instead of expecting others to support them.
Granted, the urban poor have been crafted into a culture of poverty by the elite of the areas they’re currently mired in. They really do need some help in doing something about that. And, haven’t I made proposals of how to accomplish that?
“So anyone who argues for securing our borders to keep out those with minimal skills must, to be consistent, oppose encouraging the poor to move out of cities which are disaster zones. Right? Right?”
Wrong. Because the poor who are American citizens are already members of our polity, while the poor who are citizens of other countries are NOT members of our polity. They have their own society that’s supposed to have that relationship with them.
Just because we should help our own downtrodden, doesn’t mean we should import other countries’ downtrodden, just to make the job harder.
“rather than tying to move to somewhere that absolutely doesn’t want them?”
And I was made fun of for that, “and being told that everywhere the evul Republicans rule is worse.” remark. Yet, here it is, in it’s full glory. Stay where you are, urban poor, no matter how hopeless the situation is: Nobody anywhere else will accept you!
What bunk. Conservative areas will generally accept anybody who’s in the country legally, and is willing to work for a living, instead of expecting others to support them.
Granted, the urban poor have been crafted into a culture of poverty by the elite of the areas they’re currently mired in. They really do need some help in doing something about that. And, haven’t I made proposals of how to accomplish that?
“So anyone who argues for securing our borders to keep out those with minimal skills must, to be consistent, oppose encouraging the poor to move out of cities which are disaster zones. Right? Right?”
Wrong. Because the poor who are American citizens are already members of our polity, while the poor who are citizens of other countries are NOT members of our polity. They have their own society that’s supposed to have that relationship with them.
Just because we should help our own downtrodden, doesn’t mean we should import other countries’ downtrodden, just to make the job harder.
Since the worst possible outcome precludes any future positive outcomes, I’m firmly in the latter camp.
Like climate change?
Since the worst possible outcome precludes any future positive outcomes, I’m firmly in the latter camp.
Like climate change?
Since the worst possible outcome precludes any future positive outcomes, I’m firmly in the latter camp.
Like climate change?
What bunk. Conservative areas will generally accept anybody who’s in the country legally, and is willing to work for a living, instead of expecting others to support them.
That is absolute utter bullshit.
What bunk. Conservative areas will generally accept anybody who’s in the country legally, and is willing to work for a living, instead of expecting others to support them.
That is absolute utter bullshit.
What bunk. Conservative areas will generally accept anybody who’s in the country legally, and is willing to work for a living, instead of expecting others to support them.
That is absolute utter bullshit.
I’m not the one telling poor people living in hopeless situations to stay there, now, am I?
I’m not the one telling poor people living in hopeless situations to stay there, now, am I?
I’m not the one telling poor people living in hopeless situations to stay there, now, am I?
If I had a clue what Brett was actually proposing, as a matter of policy, I’d be less befuddled. As it stands, not so much. What I can gather is that somehow Democrats are keeping the urban poor from moving, and that Democrats should stop whatever it is they’re doing to that end.
The rest about best and worst outcomes is a load of meaningless horse excrement.
If I had a clue what Brett was actually proposing, as a matter of policy, I’d be less befuddled. As it stands, not so much. What I can gather is that somehow Democrats are keeping the urban poor from moving, and that Democrats should stop whatever it is they’re doing to that end.
The rest about best and worst outcomes is a load of meaningless horse excrement.
If I had a clue what Brett was actually proposing, as a matter of policy, I’d be less befuddled. As it stands, not so much. What I can gather is that somehow Democrats are keeping the urban poor from moving, and that Democrats should stop whatever it is they’re doing to that end.
The rest about best and worst outcomes is a load of meaningless horse excrement.
Why is it “somehow”, when I described how? By paying them just enough support that inertia can take over, and telling them tales about how they wouldn’t be welcome anywhere else, so they have no hope that they can escape to something better.
Why is it “somehow”, when I described how? By paying them just enough support that inertia can take over, and telling them tales about how they wouldn’t be welcome anywhere else, so they have no hope that they can escape to something better.
Why is it “somehow”, when I described how? By paying them just enough support that inertia can take over, and telling them tales about how they wouldn’t be welcome anywhere else, so they have no hope that they can escape to something better.
Because the poor who are American citizens are already members of our polity
But I think part of the problem is that they are not at all sure that they are seen as part of our polity by the rest of us.
Because the poor who are American citizens are already members of our polity
But I think part of the problem is that they are not at all sure that they are seen as part of our polity by the rest of us.
Because the poor who are American citizens are already members of our polity
But I think part of the problem is that they are not at all sure that they are seen as part of our polity by the rest of us.
That’s ridiculous. What’s your policy prescription? Democrats knock it off?
That’s ridiculous. What’s your policy prescription? Democrats knock it off?
That’s ridiculous. What’s your policy prescription? Democrats knock it off?
wj, that’s only because Democrats poisoned their minds. It’s all part of their evil plan.
wj, that’s only because Democrats poisoned their minds. It’s all part of their evil plan.
wj, that’s only because Democrats poisoned their minds. It’s all part of their evil plan.
I’m not the one telling poor people living in hopeless situations to stay there, now, am I?
Pure sophistry. Historically, whites have made it quite clear that they do not want blacks living in there neighborhoods, competing with them for “their” jobs and sending their kids to “their” schools. Having repeatedly ransacked black wealth, whites continue to do this.
This is deeply woven into our social fabric. The evidence is overwhelming.
They cannot escape, yet we blame them for staying.
You are alone, telling us to tell them “be free, leave!” and everybody else is looking at you in exasperation thinking, “Who the fuck is this crazy dude?”
And to imply from that therefore “we” are “telling them to stay” is such a obvious (and really ineptly bad)rhetorical ploy, that we can only wonder….(about stuff that shall remain unsaid).
I’m not the one telling poor people living in hopeless situations to stay there, now, am I?
Pure sophistry. Historically, whites have made it quite clear that they do not want blacks living in there neighborhoods, competing with them for “their” jobs and sending their kids to “their” schools. Having repeatedly ransacked black wealth, whites continue to do this.
This is deeply woven into our social fabric. The evidence is overwhelming.
They cannot escape, yet we blame them for staying.
You are alone, telling us to tell them “be free, leave!” and everybody else is looking at you in exasperation thinking, “Who the fuck is this crazy dude?”
And to imply from that therefore “we” are “telling them to stay” is such a obvious (and really ineptly bad)rhetorical ploy, that we can only wonder….(about stuff that shall remain unsaid).
I’m not the one telling poor people living in hopeless situations to stay there, now, am I?
Pure sophistry. Historically, whites have made it quite clear that they do not want blacks living in there neighborhoods, competing with them for “their” jobs and sending their kids to “their” schools. Having repeatedly ransacked black wealth, whites continue to do this.
This is deeply woven into our social fabric. The evidence is overwhelming.
They cannot escape, yet we blame them for staying.
You are alone, telling us to tell them “be free, leave!” and everybody else is looking at you in exasperation thinking, “Who the fuck is this crazy dude?”
And to imply from that therefore “we” are “telling them to stay” is such a obvious (and really ineptly bad)rhetorical ploy, that we can only wonder….(about stuff that shall remain unsaid).
HSH, I think it should be noted that, when their minds were being poisoned (by experience), the folks doing the poisoning were Democrats. But they mostly migrated elsewhere a few decades ago.
HSH, I think it should be noted that, when their minds were being poisoned (by experience), the folks doing the poisoning were Democrats. But they mostly migrated elsewhere a few decades ago.
HSH, I think it should be noted that, when their minds were being poisoned (by experience), the folks doing the poisoning were Democrats. But they mostly migrated elsewhere a few decades ago.
Conservative areas will generally accept anybody who’s in the country legally, and is willing to work for a living, instead of expecting others to support them.
To be a bit more pointed, Brett, this claim is utterly laughable. A conservative community will not, as a general rule, welcome homeless, jobless, like-as-not-carless, destitute white Christian males who aren’t natives, to say nothing of various peoples who just “don’t fit in”. Even if they did “accept” them, they have no fixed address and no possessions to speak of, so how are they to get a J-O-B, assuming there are low-skill jobs to be freely had? If by some miracle they do find someone willing to hire a homeless drifter, how will they get from wherever they end up squatting until they can pay rent and where they work, as (again) the urban poor you’re castigating for not pulling up stakes are as a rule carless? Since we are talking about good, upright conservative communities, we can only imagine we’re looking at suburban or rural population density, and presumably a landscape free of the blight of “public” transit…
(Remember, we’re not just talking about single working-age adults here. The lazy parasites perpetuating urban decay at the behest of their Democrat overlords include both families with children, and the elderly.)
Conservative areas will generally accept anybody who’s in the country legally, and is willing to work for a living, instead of expecting others to support them.
To be a bit more pointed, Brett, this claim is utterly laughable. A conservative community will not, as a general rule, welcome homeless, jobless, like-as-not-carless, destitute white Christian males who aren’t natives, to say nothing of various peoples who just “don’t fit in”. Even if they did “accept” them, they have no fixed address and no possessions to speak of, so how are they to get a J-O-B, assuming there are low-skill jobs to be freely had? If by some miracle they do find someone willing to hire a homeless drifter, how will they get from wherever they end up squatting until they can pay rent and where they work, as (again) the urban poor you’re castigating for not pulling up stakes are as a rule carless? Since we are talking about good, upright conservative communities, we can only imagine we’re looking at suburban or rural population density, and presumably a landscape free of the blight of “public” transit…
(Remember, we’re not just talking about single working-age adults here. The lazy parasites perpetuating urban decay at the behest of their Democrat overlords include both families with children, and the elderly.)
Conservative areas will generally accept anybody who’s in the country legally, and is willing to work for a living, instead of expecting others to support them.
To be a bit more pointed, Brett, this claim is utterly laughable. A conservative community will not, as a general rule, welcome homeless, jobless, like-as-not-carless, destitute white Christian males who aren’t natives, to say nothing of various peoples who just “don’t fit in”. Even if they did “accept” them, they have no fixed address and no possessions to speak of, so how are they to get a J-O-B, assuming there are low-skill jobs to be freely had? If by some miracle they do find someone willing to hire a homeless drifter, how will they get from wherever they end up squatting until they can pay rent and where they work, as (again) the urban poor you’re castigating for not pulling up stakes are as a rule carless? Since we are talking about good, upright conservative communities, we can only imagine we’re looking at suburban or rural population density, and presumably a landscape free of the blight of “public” transit…
(Remember, we’re not just talking about single working-age adults here. The lazy parasites perpetuating urban decay at the behest of their Democrat overlords include both families with children, and the elderly.)
This from Jamelle Bouie was interesting, you have to get beyond the headline because he talks about a lot more.
This from Jamelle Bouie was interesting, you have to get beyond the headline because he talks about a lot more.
This from Jamelle Bouie was interesting, you have to get beyond the headline because he talks about a lot more.
Or you can help people escape
to where? for what?
where the fnck are these millions of unfilled jobs that all of these refugees from the Democratic hellholes are going to fill?
get your head out of the clouds.
Or you can help people escape
to where? for what?
where the fnck are these millions of unfilled jobs that all of these refugees from the Democratic hellholes are going to fill?
get your head out of the clouds.
Or you can help people escape
to where? for what?
where the fnck are these millions of unfilled jobs that all of these refugees from the Democratic hellholes are going to fill?
get your head out of the clouds.
Back on marriage – here’s a NYTimes article noting that Roberts may rule in favor based on the “it’s unconstitutional sex discrimination” rationale.
Back on marriage – here’s a NYTimes article noting that Roberts may rule in favor based on the “it’s unconstitutional sex discrimination” rationale.
Back on marriage – here’s a NYTimes article noting that Roberts may rule in favor based on the “it’s unconstitutional sex discrimination” rationale.
And this paragraph that flabbergasts me:
That [sex discrimination] theory had gotten only slight attention in scores of lawsuits challenging bans on same-sex marriage, and it is unlikely to serve as the central rationale if a majority of the court votes to strike down such bans, an opinion likely to be written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
Why not! Make it easy! Jeepers.
And this paragraph that flabbergasts me:
That [sex discrimination] theory had gotten only slight attention in scores of lawsuits challenging bans on same-sex marriage, and it is unlikely to serve as the central rationale if a majority of the court votes to strike down such bans, an opinion likely to be written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
Why not! Make it easy! Jeepers.
And this paragraph that flabbergasts me:
That [sex discrimination] theory had gotten only slight attention in scores of lawsuits challenging bans on same-sex marriage, and it is unlikely to serve as the central rationale if a majority of the court votes to strike down such bans, an opinion likely to be written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
Why not! Make it easy! Jeepers.
This is another case where we don’t completely have to speculate. We have a recent example of an urban area where a lot of people had to leave, and where we have a reasonable record of where they went and what they did when they left.
In 2005 hurricane Katrina hit NOLA and the surrounding area. About a million and a half people evacuated, and a huge number of them – hundreds of thousands – never went back.
Here’s a BLS paper from 2008 discussing where they went and how they made out. Here’s an LA Times piece discussing the same issues, ca. 2006. A Texas Tribune piece discussing how the city of Houston, which amazingly absorbed about 100K of the refugees, found the experience some years later.
Briefly, about 150K people left NOLA and the affected Gulf area. Most of them went to surrounding states, with the largest number by far going to Texas, especially Houston.
The reception they received varied. They were neither uniformly welcomed nor rejected.
A lot of them came to the conclusion that their chances were better wherever it was that they landed, and they stayed, or tried to stay.
In general, they are surviving in their new locations, but are not necessarily prospering.
If folks want to dig into this question, there are lots and lots and lots of examples in US history of large-scale migrations from areas where life basically sucked, for any of a number of reasons, to someplace where it seemed like it might be better.
My guess is that the results vary, and that the experience of in-country migration is not that different from emigration from another country. The first generation struggles to get a toehold, subsequent generations do incrementally better, after 50 or 100 years you’re a local.
My issue with the idea of “move the hell out of there” as strategy for dealing with economically blighted areas is basically twofold.
First, not everybody can actually move, for any of a variety of reasons. and in general the folks that can’t are the folks with the least resources in the first place. So, you end up with the crappy place being even more blighted than it was before.
And second, the place that you’re abandoning quite often has things to offer in the way of human and other resources, that are then wasted. In other words, the economic and social situation isn’t inherently FUBAR, it’s a result of a specific set of circumstances. Historical, social, political, whatever. Any of which can be changed.
So, freaking change them, rather than make everybody move.
I understand Brett’s preference for solutions that don’t require people to act cooperatively, as a community, but I basically find that mindset unattractive, because there’s only so much that can be accomplished by everybody taking care of themselves and only themselves.
When the discussion turns to issues of that nature, we’re talking about matters that extend into issues of temperament and worldview, which is to say, personal stance toward the world.
I’m not interested in criticizing Brett’s personal stance toward the world, beyond pointing out how it might play out in matters of public life. So, that’s all I’ll say about it.
My observation is that “get the hell out of the sh*thole!” as an approach to dealing with areas facing economic or social stress is kind of how we end up with places like Detroit, and Baltimore, and central Brooklyn, and the South Bronx. And rural West Virginia and Kentucky and up-country Virginia and the Carolinas, for that matter, and a lot of the rural Northwest, and a lot of the rural West period, and a hell of a lot of other rural areas in this country. It ain’t just an urban thing.
All of those places have something to offer. If we are wise, we will find a way to make that potential manifest.
Then, everybody’s happy.
This is another case where we don’t completely have to speculate. We have a recent example of an urban area where a lot of people had to leave, and where we have a reasonable record of where they went and what they did when they left.
In 2005 hurricane Katrina hit NOLA and the surrounding area. About a million and a half people evacuated, and a huge number of them – hundreds of thousands – never went back.
Here’s a BLS paper from 2008 discussing where they went and how they made out. Here’s an LA Times piece discussing the same issues, ca. 2006. A Texas Tribune piece discussing how the city of Houston, which amazingly absorbed about 100K of the refugees, found the experience some years later.
Briefly, about 150K people left NOLA and the affected Gulf area. Most of them went to surrounding states, with the largest number by far going to Texas, especially Houston.
The reception they received varied. They were neither uniformly welcomed nor rejected.
A lot of them came to the conclusion that their chances were better wherever it was that they landed, and they stayed, or tried to stay.
In general, they are surviving in their new locations, but are not necessarily prospering.
If folks want to dig into this question, there are lots and lots and lots of examples in US history of large-scale migrations from areas where life basically sucked, for any of a number of reasons, to someplace where it seemed like it might be better.
My guess is that the results vary, and that the experience of in-country migration is not that different from emigration from another country. The first generation struggles to get a toehold, subsequent generations do incrementally better, after 50 or 100 years you’re a local.
My issue with the idea of “move the hell out of there” as strategy for dealing with economically blighted areas is basically twofold.
First, not everybody can actually move, for any of a variety of reasons. and in general the folks that can’t are the folks with the least resources in the first place. So, you end up with the crappy place being even more blighted than it was before.
And second, the place that you’re abandoning quite often has things to offer in the way of human and other resources, that are then wasted. In other words, the economic and social situation isn’t inherently FUBAR, it’s a result of a specific set of circumstances. Historical, social, political, whatever. Any of which can be changed.
So, freaking change them, rather than make everybody move.
I understand Brett’s preference for solutions that don’t require people to act cooperatively, as a community, but I basically find that mindset unattractive, because there’s only so much that can be accomplished by everybody taking care of themselves and only themselves.
When the discussion turns to issues of that nature, we’re talking about matters that extend into issues of temperament and worldview, which is to say, personal stance toward the world.
I’m not interested in criticizing Brett’s personal stance toward the world, beyond pointing out how it might play out in matters of public life. So, that’s all I’ll say about it.
My observation is that “get the hell out of the sh*thole!” as an approach to dealing with areas facing economic or social stress is kind of how we end up with places like Detroit, and Baltimore, and central Brooklyn, and the South Bronx. And rural West Virginia and Kentucky and up-country Virginia and the Carolinas, for that matter, and a lot of the rural Northwest, and a lot of the rural West period, and a hell of a lot of other rural areas in this country. It ain’t just an urban thing.
All of those places have something to offer. If we are wise, we will find a way to make that potential manifest.
Then, everybody’s happy.
This is another case where we don’t completely have to speculate. We have a recent example of an urban area where a lot of people had to leave, and where we have a reasonable record of where they went and what they did when they left.
In 2005 hurricane Katrina hit NOLA and the surrounding area. About a million and a half people evacuated, and a huge number of them – hundreds of thousands – never went back.
Here’s a BLS paper from 2008 discussing where they went and how they made out. Here’s an LA Times piece discussing the same issues, ca. 2006. A Texas Tribune piece discussing how the city of Houston, which amazingly absorbed about 100K of the refugees, found the experience some years later.
Briefly, about 150K people left NOLA and the affected Gulf area. Most of them went to surrounding states, with the largest number by far going to Texas, especially Houston.
The reception they received varied. They were neither uniformly welcomed nor rejected.
A lot of them came to the conclusion that their chances were better wherever it was that they landed, and they stayed, or tried to stay.
In general, they are surviving in their new locations, but are not necessarily prospering.
If folks want to dig into this question, there are lots and lots and lots of examples in US history of large-scale migrations from areas where life basically sucked, for any of a number of reasons, to someplace where it seemed like it might be better.
My guess is that the results vary, and that the experience of in-country migration is not that different from emigration from another country. The first generation struggles to get a toehold, subsequent generations do incrementally better, after 50 or 100 years you’re a local.
My issue with the idea of “move the hell out of there” as strategy for dealing with economically blighted areas is basically twofold.
First, not everybody can actually move, for any of a variety of reasons. and in general the folks that can’t are the folks with the least resources in the first place. So, you end up with the crappy place being even more blighted than it was before.
And second, the place that you’re abandoning quite often has things to offer in the way of human and other resources, that are then wasted. In other words, the economic and social situation isn’t inherently FUBAR, it’s a result of a specific set of circumstances. Historical, social, political, whatever. Any of which can be changed.
So, freaking change them, rather than make everybody move.
I understand Brett’s preference for solutions that don’t require people to act cooperatively, as a community, but I basically find that mindset unattractive, because there’s only so much that can be accomplished by everybody taking care of themselves and only themselves.
When the discussion turns to issues of that nature, we’re talking about matters that extend into issues of temperament and worldview, which is to say, personal stance toward the world.
I’m not interested in criticizing Brett’s personal stance toward the world, beyond pointing out how it might play out in matters of public life. So, that’s all I’ll say about it.
My observation is that “get the hell out of the sh*thole!” as an approach to dealing with areas facing economic or social stress is kind of how we end up with places like Detroit, and Baltimore, and central Brooklyn, and the South Bronx. And rural West Virginia and Kentucky and up-country Virginia and the Carolinas, for that matter, and a lot of the rural Northwest, and a lot of the rural West period, and a hell of a lot of other rural areas in this country. It ain’t just an urban thing.
All of those places have something to offer. If we are wise, we will find a way to make that potential manifest.
Then, everybody’s happy.
Getting out of sh*tholes like the former Confederate states was the motivation for millions of people to move to cities like Detroit in the first place. Now Brett is advocating that the children and grandchildren of those people should move back.
You know Brett is getting desperate when he resorts to using the phrase “our polity” to mean “The United States of America”. He’s usually reluctant (to use no stronger word) to admit that he shares a political system and a national government with the likes of me and Russell and the rest of you lot. Belonging to a “polity” when he “really dislike[s] solutions that require agreement to implement” must be tough on the poor guy. Appealing to the notion of a “polity” that he routinely deprecates, in order to support his ridiculous position, must hurt like a toothache.
–TP
Getting out of sh*tholes like the former Confederate states was the motivation for millions of people to move to cities like Detroit in the first place. Now Brett is advocating that the children and grandchildren of those people should move back.
You know Brett is getting desperate when he resorts to using the phrase “our polity” to mean “The United States of America”. He’s usually reluctant (to use no stronger word) to admit that he shares a political system and a national government with the likes of me and Russell and the rest of you lot. Belonging to a “polity” when he “really dislike[s] solutions that require agreement to implement” must be tough on the poor guy. Appealing to the notion of a “polity” that he routinely deprecates, in order to support his ridiculous position, must hurt like a toothache.
–TP
Getting out of sh*tholes like the former Confederate states was the motivation for millions of people to move to cities like Detroit in the first place. Now Brett is advocating that the children and grandchildren of those people should move back.
You know Brett is getting desperate when he resorts to using the phrase “our polity” to mean “The United States of America”. He’s usually reluctant (to use no stronger word) to admit that he shares a political system and a national government with the likes of me and Russell and the rest of you lot. Belonging to a “polity” when he “really dislike[s] solutions that require agreement to implement” must be tough on the poor guy. Appealing to the notion of a “polity” that he routinely deprecates, in order to support his ridiculous position, must hurt like a toothache.
–TP
You mean, we gots to move again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_%28African_American%29
http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/great-migration
If Americans from the formerly great urban manufacturing centers could follow their jobs, including the millions of service jobs that supported manufacturing, they’d move to Shanghai.
A lot of the muscle that moved to rural areas like Williston, North Dakota, rural Pennsylvania, and areas of Texas not too awfully long ago for the shale oil boom are now looking to get their pates under the dumb-looking paper hats of the fast food industry.
Where they gonna go, back to Detroit?
You going to pick crops in California’s Central Valley?
Nope, not with that drought.
Many of the urban poor are the elderly.
They don’t move well.
Fats Domino, for example:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5259801
And he has a portable talent.
Your white, and black Archie Bunkers whose medical plans were canceled after they retired because a guy can make the same widget for 14 cents an hour in India or Vietnam, are staying put.
What are they gonna do, work for Google in Silicon Valley?
You mean, we gots to move again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_%28African_American%29
http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/great-migration
If Americans from the formerly great urban manufacturing centers could follow their jobs, including the millions of service jobs that supported manufacturing, they’d move to Shanghai.
A lot of the muscle that moved to rural areas like Williston, North Dakota, rural Pennsylvania, and areas of Texas not too awfully long ago for the shale oil boom are now looking to get their pates under the dumb-looking paper hats of the fast food industry.
Where they gonna go, back to Detroit?
You going to pick crops in California’s Central Valley?
Nope, not with that drought.
Many of the urban poor are the elderly.
They don’t move well.
Fats Domino, for example:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5259801
And he has a portable talent.
Your white, and black Archie Bunkers whose medical plans were canceled after they retired because a guy can make the same widget for 14 cents an hour in India or Vietnam, are staying put.
What are they gonna do, work for Google in Silicon Valley?
You mean, we gots to move again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_%28African_American%29
http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/great-migration
If Americans from the formerly great urban manufacturing centers could follow their jobs, including the millions of service jobs that supported manufacturing, they’d move to Shanghai.
A lot of the muscle that moved to rural areas like Williston, North Dakota, rural Pennsylvania, and areas of Texas not too awfully long ago for the shale oil boom are now looking to get their pates under the dumb-looking paper hats of the fast food industry.
Where they gonna go, back to Detroit?
You going to pick crops in California’s Central Valley?
Nope, not with that drought.
Many of the urban poor are the elderly.
They don’t move well.
Fats Domino, for example:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5259801
And he has a portable talent.
Your white, and black Archie Bunkers whose medical plans were canceled after they retired because a guy can make the same widget for 14 cents an hour in India or Vietnam, are staying put.
What are they gonna do, work for Google in Silicon Valley?
Unfortunately, not everyone can be Fats Domino
http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/61497/bluesman-clarence-gatemouth-brown-dies
I was living 40 miles away from him and didn’t even realize it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y41jsG_fVY
Unfortunately, not everyone can be Fats Domino
http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/61497/bluesman-clarence-gatemouth-brown-dies
I was living 40 miles away from him and didn’t even realize it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y41jsG_fVY
Unfortunately, not everyone can be Fats Domino
http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/61497/bluesman-clarence-gatemouth-brown-dies
I was living 40 miles away from him and didn’t even realize it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y41jsG_fVY
Ugh: “Why not! Make it easy! Jeepers.”
Because the ERA didn’t get ratified, so the unconstitutional sex discrimination basis is shaky at best?
Ugh: “Why not! Make it easy! Jeepers.”
Because the ERA didn’t get ratified, so the unconstitutional sex discrimination basis is shaky at best?
Ugh: “Why not! Make it easy! Jeepers.”
Because the ERA didn’t get ratified, so the unconstitutional sex discrimination basis is shaky at best?
There are a lot of proposed amendments that don’t get ratified for a lot of reasons. I’m not sure that’s a basis to interpret the constitution on.
There are a lot of proposed amendments that don’t get ratified for a lot of reasons. I’m not sure that’s a basis to interpret the constitution on.
There are a lot of proposed amendments that don’t get ratified for a lot of reasons. I’m not sure that’s a basis to interpret the constitution on.
It’s a basis to not interpret the Constitution on.
Let’s be clear about what happened: The ERA got defeated, and then the proponents switched over to a drive to have the 14th amendment interpreted so as to make the ERA’s defeat moot. Success at that is just about total at this point.
But, if the 14th amendment really covered sex discrimination, why the ERA in the first place? Why the 19th amendment?
This isn’t legitimate constitutional interpretation, it’s just a determination to make the states’ refusal to ratify the ERA meaningless.
It’s a basis to not interpret the Constitution on.
Let’s be clear about what happened: The ERA got defeated, and then the proponents switched over to a drive to have the 14th amendment interpreted so as to make the ERA’s defeat moot. Success at that is just about total at this point.
But, if the 14th amendment really covered sex discrimination, why the ERA in the first place? Why the 19th amendment?
This isn’t legitimate constitutional interpretation, it’s just a determination to make the states’ refusal to ratify the ERA meaningless.
It’s a basis to not interpret the Constitution on.
Let’s be clear about what happened: The ERA got defeated, and then the proponents switched over to a drive to have the 14th amendment interpreted so as to make the ERA’s defeat moot. Success at that is just about total at this point.
But, if the 14th amendment really covered sex discrimination, why the ERA in the first place? Why the 19th amendment?
This isn’t legitimate constitutional interpretation, it’s just a determination to make the states’ refusal to ratify the ERA meaningless.
Sure about that, Ugh?
Didn’t pass a Balanced Budget Amendment, either, so that means the US should go in the exact opposite direction and run up EVEN BIGGER deficits.
Maybe by fixing up the urban infrastructure for the poors.
Nah, that’s CRaZy talk.
Sure about that, Ugh?
Didn’t pass a Balanced Budget Amendment, either, so that means the US should go in the exact opposite direction and run up EVEN BIGGER deficits.
Maybe by fixing up the urban infrastructure for the poors.
Nah, that’s CRaZy talk.
Sure about that, Ugh?
Didn’t pass a Balanced Budget Amendment, either, so that means the US should go in the exact opposite direction and run up EVEN BIGGER deficits.
Maybe by fixing up the urban infrastructure for the poors.
Nah, that’s CRaZy talk.
No, it just means that a balanced budget isn’t constitutionally mandated. If the Supreme court were to rule that the federal government could not, constitutionally, run a deficit, I’d condemn that, too. Even though I think that, as a general matter, it shouldn’t be running deficits.
No, it just means that a balanced budget isn’t constitutionally mandated. If the Supreme court were to rule that the federal government could not, constitutionally, run a deficit, I’d condemn that, too. Even though I think that, as a general matter, it shouldn’t be running deficits.
No, it just means that a balanced budget isn’t constitutionally mandated. If the Supreme court were to rule that the federal government could not, constitutionally, run a deficit, I’d condemn that, too. Even though I think that, as a general matter, it shouldn’t be running deficits.
If this keeps up, Phyllis Schafly will be sharing a urinal with married gay men.
If this keeps up, Phyllis Schafly will be sharing a urinal with married gay men.
If this keeps up, Phyllis Schafly will be sharing a urinal with married gay men.
well the heightened constitutional scrutiny given to sex-based classifications pre-dates the failure of the states to ratify the ERA by several years, at least.
But, if the 14th amendment really covered sex discrimination, why the ERA in the first place? Why the 19th amendment?
Uh, because the 14th amendment states in relevant part: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That’s a pretty straightforward statement, but also very short and thus open to judicial (and other) interpretation.
Do women (or men, FTM) count as persons under the 14th Amendment, yes or no? Would a state law that says only men may own property be valid under the 14th Amendment as you read it, yes or no? Without the 19th amendment, could states ban women from voting today, yes or no? Which view is truer to the phrase “equal protection of the laws,” that states can grant marriage rights on the basis of sex, or they can’t?
There are a variety of reasons not to ratify the ERA, including that ratification would validate the very view you are espousing. Moreover, amendment ratification may fail even if 90% of the population agreed that it should be ratified, due to the rather anachronistic and undemocratic process for amending the constitution. There’s a reason why we’ve only had 3 amendments in the past 50 years, 2 of which are barely worth mentioning.
All that said, I’m not sure why it should bother anyone from a constitutional standpoint if the Court said “equal protection of the laws” means no sex-based discrimination in granting marital rights and obligations to same sex couples, especially given the court’s jurisprudence on that over the past 40 years.
well the heightened constitutional scrutiny given to sex-based classifications pre-dates the failure of the states to ratify the ERA by several years, at least.
But, if the 14th amendment really covered sex discrimination, why the ERA in the first place? Why the 19th amendment?
Uh, because the 14th amendment states in relevant part: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That’s a pretty straightforward statement, but also very short and thus open to judicial (and other) interpretation.
Do women (or men, FTM) count as persons under the 14th Amendment, yes or no? Would a state law that says only men may own property be valid under the 14th Amendment as you read it, yes or no? Without the 19th amendment, could states ban women from voting today, yes or no? Which view is truer to the phrase “equal protection of the laws,” that states can grant marriage rights on the basis of sex, or they can’t?
There are a variety of reasons not to ratify the ERA, including that ratification would validate the very view you are espousing. Moreover, amendment ratification may fail even if 90% of the population agreed that it should be ratified, due to the rather anachronistic and undemocratic process for amending the constitution. There’s a reason why we’ve only had 3 amendments in the past 50 years, 2 of which are barely worth mentioning.
All that said, I’m not sure why it should bother anyone from a constitutional standpoint if the Court said “equal protection of the laws” means no sex-based discrimination in granting marital rights and obligations to same sex couples, especially given the court’s jurisprudence on that over the past 40 years.
well the heightened constitutional scrutiny given to sex-based classifications pre-dates the failure of the states to ratify the ERA by several years, at least.
But, if the 14th amendment really covered sex discrimination, why the ERA in the first place? Why the 19th amendment?
Uh, because the 14th amendment states in relevant part: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That’s a pretty straightforward statement, but also very short and thus open to judicial (and other) interpretation.
Do women (or men, FTM) count as persons under the 14th Amendment, yes or no? Would a state law that says only men may own property be valid under the 14th Amendment as you read it, yes or no? Without the 19th amendment, could states ban women from voting today, yes or no? Which view is truer to the phrase “equal protection of the laws,” that states can grant marriage rights on the basis of sex, or they can’t?
There are a variety of reasons not to ratify the ERA, including that ratification would validate the very view you are espousing. Moreover, amendment ratification may fail even if 90% of the population agreed that it should be ratified, due to the rather anachronistic and undemocratic process for amending the constitution. There’s a reason why we’ve only had 3 amendments in the past 50 years, 2 of which are barely worth mentioning.
All that said, I’m not sure why it should bother anyone from a constitutional standpoint if the Court said “equal protection of the laws” means no sex-based discrimination in granting marital rights and obligations to same sex couples, especially given the court’s jurisprudence on that over the past 40 years.
But, if the 14th amendment really covered sex discrimination, why the ERA in the first place? Why the 19th amendment?
Define “really.”
But, if the 14th amendment really covered sex discrimination, why the ERA in the first place? Why the 19th amendment?
Define “really.”
But, if the 14th amendment really covered sex discrimination, why the ERA in the first place? Why the 19th amendment?
Define “really.”
One argument against the ERA, at the time, was that it was superfluous because of the 14th Amendment.
–TP
One argument against the ERA, at the time, was that it was superfluous because of the 14th Amendment.
–TP
One argument against the ERA, at the time, was that it was superfluous because of the 14th Amendment.
–TP
“Moreover, amendment ratification may fail even if 90% of the population agreed that it should be ratified,”
But this was, conspicuously, not the case with the ERA. You’d have been hard put to generate a list of states ratifying and rejecting that better matched the fraction of states to the fraction of the population.
The reason it bothers me is that this represents another step in Article V being rendered meaningless. The power to ratify involves the power to refuse to ratify, and here we have the judiciary taking that power away, responding to the states’ refusal to amend the Constitution by simply changing their interpretation of another amendment to incorporate the meaning the rejected amendment had.
And to do it in order to accomplish exactly the end that caused the proposed amendment to be rejected!
What’s the point in permitting states to refuse to ratify amendments, if the judiciary won’t let it matter?
“Moreover, amendment ratification may fail even if 90% of the population agreed that it should be ratified,”
But this was, conspicuously, not the case with the ERA. You’d have been hard put to generate a list of states ratifying and rejecting that better matched the fraction of states to the fraction of the population.
The reason it bothers me is that this represents another step in Article V being rendered meaningless. The power to ratify involves the power to refuse to ratify, and here we have the judiciary taking that power away, responding to the states’ refusal to amend the Constitution by simply changing their interpretation of another amendment to incorporate the meaning the rejected amendment had.
And to do it in order to accomplish exactly the end that caused the proposed amendment to be rejected!
What’s the point in permitting states to refuse to ratify amendments, if the judiciary won’t let it matter?
“Moreover, amendment ratification may fail even if 90% of the population agreed that it should be ratified,”
But this was, conspicuously, not the case with the ERA. You’d have been hard put to generate a list of states ratifying and rejecting that better matched the fraction of states to the fraction of the population.
The reason it bothers me is that this represents another step in Article V being rendered meaningless. The power to ratify involves the power to refuse to ratify, and here we have the judiciary taking that power away, responding to the states’ refusal to amend the Constitution by simply changing their interpretation of another amendment to incorporate the meaning the rejected amendment had.
And to do it in order to accomplish exactly the end that caused the proposed amendment to be rejected!
What’s the point in permitting states to refuse to ratify amendments, if the judiciary won’t let it matter?
What you seem to be proposing, Brett, is that the judiciary cannot change its interpretation once an amendment has failed to be ratified if the new interpretation is consistent with the intent of the failed amendment.
How many failed amendments have there been, and how many of them have been rendered moot by a judicial re-interpretation of the constitution? Were such re-interpretations unreasonable?
What you seem to be proposing, Brett, is that the judiciary cannot change its interpretation once an amendment has failed to be ratified if the new interpretation is consistent with the intent of the failed amendment.
How many failed amendments have there been, and how many of them have been rendered moot by a judicial re-interpretation of the constitution? Were such re-interpretations unreasonable?
What you seem to be proposing, Brett, is that the judiciary cannot change its interpretation once an amendment has failed to be ratified if the new interpretation is consistent with the intent of the failed amendment.
How many failed amendments have there been, and how many of them have been rendered moot by a judicial re-interpretation of the constitution? Were such re-interpretations unreasonable?
Brett:
I’d also be very interested in answers to Ugh’s questions:
Do women (or men, FTM) count as persons under the 14th Amendment, yes or no? Would a state law that says only men may own property be valid under the 14th Amendment as you read it, yes or no?
Brett:
I’d also be very interested in answers to Ugh’s questions:
Do women (or men, FTM) count as persons under the 14th Amendment, yes or no? Would a state law that says only men may own property be valid under the 14th Amendment as you read it, yes or no?
Brett:
I’d also be very interested in answers to Ugh’s questions:
Do women (or men, FTM) count as persons under the 14th Amendment, yes or no? Would a state law that says only men may own property be valid under the 14th Amendment as you read it, yes or no?
One of the best things Obama ever said.
“In those environments, if we think that we’re just gonna send the police to do the dirty work of containing the problems that arise there, without as a nation and as a society saying what can we do to change those communities, to help lift up those communities and give those kids opportunity, then we’re not gonna solve this problem,”
“And we’ll go through the same cycles of periodic conflicts between the police and communities and the occasional riots in the streets. And everybody will feign concern until it goes away and then we go about our business as usual.”
“This is not new, It’s been going on for decades. And without making any excuses for criminal activities that take place in these communities, what we also know is that if you have impoverished communities that have been stripped away of opportunity, where children are born into abject poverty; they’ve got parents, often, because of substance abuse problems or incarceration or lack of education themselves, who can’t do right by their kids.”
“It’s more likely that those kids end up in jail or dead, than that they go to college. In communities where there are no fathers who can provide guidance to young men. Communities where there’s no investment and manufacturing’s been stripped away. And drugs have flooded the community, and the drug industry ends up being the primary employer for a whole lot of folks.”
“When individuals get crowbars and start prying open doors to loot, they’re not protesting, they’re not making a statement, they’re stealing. That is not a protest, that is not a statement, it’s people—a handful of people taking advantage of the situation for their own purposes, and they need to be treated as criminals.”
“We can’t just leave this to the police. I think there are police departments that have to do some soul searching. I think there are some communities that have to do some soul searching. But I think we, as a country, have to do some soul searching.”
“If we are serious about solving this problem, then we’re going to not only have to help the police, we’re going to think about what can we do, the rest of us, to make sure that we’re providing early education to these kids, to make sure that we’re reforming our criminal justice system so it’s not just a pipeline from schools to prisons, so that we’re not rendering men in these communities unemployable because of a felony record for a non-violent drug offense; that we’re making investments so that they can get the training they need to find jobs.”
“But if we really want to solve the problem, if our society really wanted to solve the problem, we could. It’s just it would require everybody saying this is important, this is significant, and that we don’t just pay attention to these communities when a CVS burns and we don’t just pay attention when a young man gets shot or has his spine snapped. We’re paying attention all the time because we consider those kids our kids and we think they’re important and they shouldn’t be living in poverty and violence.”
One of the best things Obama ever said.
“In those environments, if we think that we’re just gonna send the police to do the dirty work of containing the problems that arise there, without as a nation and as a society saying what can we do to change those communities, to help lift up those communities and give those kids opportunity, then we’re not gonna solve this problem,”
“And we’ll go through the same cycles of periodic conflicts between the police and communities and the occasional riots in the streets. And everybody will feign concern until it goes away and then we go about our business as usual.”
“This is not new, It’s been going on for decades. And without making any excuses for criminal activities that take place in these communities, what we also know is that if you have impoverished communities that have been stripped away of opportunity, where children are born into abject poverty; they’ve got parents, often, because of substance abuse problems or incarceration or lack of education themselves, who can’t do right by their kids.”
“It’s more likely that those kids end up in jail or dead, than that they go to college. In communities where there are no fathers who can provide guidance to young men. Communities where there’s no investment and manufacturing’s been stripped away. And drugs have flooded the community, and the drug industry ends up being the primary employer for a whole lot of folks.”
“When individuals get crowbars and start prying open doors to loot, they’re not protesting, they’re not making a statement, they’re stealing. That is not a protest, that is not a statement, it’s people—a handful of people taking advantage of the situation for their own purposes, and they need to be treated as criminals.”
“We can’t just leave this to the police. I think there are police departments that have to do some soul searching. I think there are some communities that have to do some soul searching. But I think we, as a country, have to do some soul searching.”
“If we are serious about solving this problem, then we’re going to not only have to help the police, we’re going to think about what can we do, the rest of us, to make sure that we’re providing early education to these kids, to make sure that we’re reforming our criminal justice system so it’s not just a pipeline from schools to prisons, so that we’re not rendering men in these communities unemployable because of a felony record for a non-violent drug offense; that we’re making investments so that they can get the training they need to find jobs.”
“But if we really want to solve the problem, if our society really wanted to solve the problem, we could. It’s just it would require everybody saying this is important, this is significant, and that we don’t just pay attention to these communities when a CVS burns and we don’t just pay attention when a young man gets shot or has his spine snapped. We’re paying attention all the time because we consider those kids our kids and we think they’re important and they shouldn’t be living in poverty and violence.”
One of the best things Obama ever said.
“In those environments, if we think that we’re just gonna send the police to do the dirty work of containing the problems that arise there, without as a nation and as a society saying what can we do to change those communities, to help lift up those communities and give those kids opportunity, then we’re not gonna solve this problem,”
“And we’ll go through the same cycles of periodic conflicts between the police and communities and the occasional riots in the streets. And everybody will feign concern until it goes away and then we go about our business as usual.”
“This is not new, It’s been going on for decades. And without making any excuses for criminal activities that take place in these communities, what we also know is that if you have impoverished communities that have been stripped away of opportunity, where children are born into abject poverty; they’ve got parents, often, because of substance abuse problems or incarceration or lack of education themselves, who can’t do right by their kids.”
“It’s more likely that those kids end up in jail or dead, than that they go to college. In communities where there are no fathers who can provide guidance to young men. Communities where there’s no investment and manufacturing’s been stripped away. And drugs have flooded the community, and the drug industry ends up being the primary employer for a whole lot of folks.”
“When individuals get crowbars and start prying open doors to loot, they’re not protesting, they’re not making a statement, they’re stealing. That is not a protest, that is not a statement, it’s people—a handful of people taking advantage of the situation for their own purposes, and they need to be treated as criminals.”
“We can’t just leave this to the police. I think there are police departments that have to do some soul searching. I think there are some communities that have to do some soul searching. But I think we, as a country, have to do some soul searching.”
“If we are serious about solving this problem, then we’re going to not only have to help the police, we’re going to think about what can we do, the rest of us, to make sure that we’re providing early education to these kids, to make sure that we’re reforming our criminal justice system so it’s not just a pipeline from schools to prisons, so that we’re not rendering men in these communities unemployable because of a felony record for a non-violent drug offense; that we’re making investments so that they can get the training they need to find jobs.”
“But if we really want to solve the problem, if our society really wanted to solve the problem, we could. It’s just it would require everybody saying this is important, this is significant, and that we don’t just pay attention to these communities when a CVS burns and we don’t just pay attention when a young man gets shot or has his spine snapped. We’re paying attention all the time because we consider those kids our kids and we think they’re important and they shouldn’t be living in poverty and violence.”
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
“What you seem to be proposing, Brett, is that the judiciary cannot change its interpretation once an amendment has failed to be ratified if the new interpretation is consistent with the intent of the failed amendment.”
Yes, that’s exactly what I’d propose. To do that is just naked circumvention of Article V, nothing more.
“Do women (or men, FTM) count as persons under the 14th Amendment, yes or no? Would a state law that says only men may own property be valid under the 14th Amendment as you read it, yes or no?”
The question is not whether women or men count as people. The question is what constitutes equal protection of the law. To give you an example, presently the law may mandate, as in building codes, different bathroom facilities for men and women. The law is not required to treat men and women as though they were interchangable.
A law prohibiting women from owning property could never survive even rational basis review. A law prohibiting women of child bearing age from working in the nuclear industry, or setting up lower radiation exposure? It wouldn’t have to pass strict scrutiny.
The ERA was understood to change this. One common argument against it was that it would require unisex bathrooms. Another, dismissed as hysterical by the ERA’s proponents, was that it would require… SSM!
Not authorizing SSM can’t survive strict scrutiny. Rational basis? If honestly applied, it could survive that, I think.
“What you seem to be proposing, Brett, is that the judiciary cannot change its interpretation once an amendment has failed to be ratified if the new interpretation is consistent with the intent of the failed amendment.”
Yes, that’s exactly what I’d propose. To do that is just naked circumvention of Article V, nothing more.
“Do women (or men, FTM) count as persons under the 14th Amendment, yes or no? Would a state law that says only men may own property be valid under the 14th Amendment as you read it, yes or no?”
The question is not whether women or men count as people. The question is what constitutes equal protection of the law. To give you an example, presently the law may mandate, as in building codes, different bathroom facilities for men and women. The law is not required to treat men and women as though they were interchangable.
A law prohibiting women from owning property could never survive even rational basis review. A law prohibiting women of child bearing age from working in the nuclear industry, or setting up lower radiation exposure? It wouldn’t have to pass strict scrutiny.
The ERA was understood to change this. One common argument against it was that it would require unisex bathrooms. Another, dismissed as hysterical by the ERA’s proponents, was that it would require… SSM!
Not authorizing SSM can’t survive strict scrutiny. Rational basis? If honestly applied, it could survive that, I think.
“What you seem to be proposing, Brett, is that the judiciary cannot change its interpretation once an amendment has failed to be ratified if the new interpretation is consistent with the intent of the failed amendment.”
Yes, that’s exactly what I’d propose. To do that is just naked circumvention of Article V, nothing more.
“Do women (or men, FTM) count as persons under the 14th Amendment, yes or no? Would a state law that says only men may own property be valid under the 14th Amendment as you read it, yes or no?”
The question is not whether women or men count as people. The question is what constitutes equal protection of the law. To give you an example, presently the law may mandate, as in building codes, different bathroom facilities for men and women. The law is not required to treat men and women as though they were interchangable.
A law prohibiting women from owning property could never survive even rational basis review. A law prohibiting women of child bearing age from working in the nuclear industry, or setting up lower radiation exposure? It wouldn’t have to pass strict scrutiny.
The ERA was understood to change this. One common argument against it was that it would require unisex bathrooms. Another, dismissed as hysterical by the ERA’s proponents, was that it would require… SSM!
Not authorizing SSM can’t survive strict scrutiny. Rational basis? If honestly applied, it could survive that, I think.
Marty: Yep.
Marty: Yep.
Marty: Yep.
The president can say what he likes, but there’s too much vested interest in the way things are in troubled cities for anything to change for the better very fast, if at all.
The president can say what he likes, but there’s too much vested interest in the way things are in troubled cities for anything to change for the better very fast, if at all.
The president can say what he likes, but there’s too much vested interest in the way things are in troubled cities for anything to change for the better very fast, if at all.
Not authorizing SSM can’t survive strict scrutiny.
As marriage is a fundamental right (Loving), isn’t strict scrutiny the relevant level of review?
Not authorizing SSM can’t survive strict scrutiny.
As marriage is a fundamental right (Loving), isn’t strict scrutiny the relevant level of review?
Not authorizing SSM can’t survive strict scrutiny.
As marriage is a fundamental right (Loving), isn’t strict scrutiny the relevant level of review?
Charles:
Also, sadly, true.
Charles:
Also, sadly, true.
Charles:
Also, sadly, true.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’d propose. To do that is just naked circumvention of Article V, nothing more.
So, one could, under your proposal, prevent a particular future judicial re-interpretation of the constitution by introducing an amendment, knowing it wouldn’t be ratified at that time, having the intent of that future re-interpretation.
Wouldn’t that be stripping the judiciary of its constitutional powers of interpreting the law?
On what basis would you be objecting to the judicial re-interpretations that rendered the ERA moot had there never been an ERA?
I’m not suggesting that there is no reasonable objection possible, but I wonder if you would object to those re-interpretations as being clearly unreasonable, since your talking about “naked circumvention of Article V, nothing more.”
As far as I know, there’s been one failed amendment you could argue was rendered moot by the Supreme Court. How that establishes a pattern of some sort of abuse is unclear to me, short of that instance involving a clearly unreasonable basis, which could be demonstrated even without regard to the failed amendment.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’d propose. To do that is just naked circumvention of Article V, nothing more.
So, one could, under your proposal, prevent a particular future judicial re-interpretation of the constitution by introducing an amendment, knowing it wouldn’t be ratified at that time, having the intent of that future re-interpretation.
Wouldn’t that be stripping the judiciary of its constitutional powers of interpreting the law?
On what basis would you be objecting to the judicial re-interpretations that rendered the ERA moot had there never been an ERA?
I’m not suggesting that there is no reasonable objection possible, but I wonder if you would object to those re-interpretations as being clearly unreasonable, since your talking about “naked circumvention of Article V, nothing more.”
As far as I know, there’s been one failed amendment you could argue was rendered moot by the Supreme Court. How that establishes a pattern of some sort of abuse is unclear to me, short of that instance involving a clearly unreasonable basis, which could be demonstrated even without regard to the failed amendment.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’d propose. To do that is just naked circumvention of Article V, nothing more.
So, one could, under your proposal, prevent a particular future judicial re-interpretation of the constitution by introducing an amendment, knowing it wouldn’t be ratified at that time, having the intent of that future re-interpretation.
Wouldn’t that be stripping the judiciary of its constitutional powers of interpreting the law?
On what basis would you be objecting to the judicial re-interpretations that rendered the ERA moot had there never been an ERA?
I’m not suggesting that there is no reasonable objection possible, but I wonder if you would object to those re-interpretations as being clearly unreasonable, since your talking about “naked circumvention of Article V, nothing more.”
As far as I know, there’s been one failed amendment you could argue was rendered moot by the Supreme Court. How that establishes a pattern of some sort of abuse is unclear to me, short of that instance involving a clearly unreasonable basis, which could be demonstrated even without regard to the failed amendment.
HSH: Calvinball. All the way down.
HSH: Calvinball. All the way down.
HSH: Calvinball. All the way down.
“As marriage is a fundamental right (Loving), isn’t strict scrutiny the relevant level of review?”
Yes, but the question here is NOT whether homosexuals have the right to marry. They have, all along.
The question is, “What is marriage?”. And the position of opponents of SSM, is that it isn’t a union between two people of the same gender, that what gays want to do isn’t “marriage”.
They’ve already got equal rights under the 14th amendment. They just don’t want to do what they’ve got an equal right to do.
“As marriage is a fundamental right (Loving), isn’t strict scrutiny the relevant level of review?”
Yes, but the question here is NOT whether homosexuals have the right to marry. They have, all along.
The question is, “What is marriage?”. And the position of opponents of SSM, is that it isn’t a union between two people of the same gender, that what gays want to do isn’t “marriage”.
They’ve already got equal rights under the 14th amendment. They just don’t want to do what they’ve got an equal right to do.
“As marriage is a fundamental right (Loving), isn’t strict scrutiny the relevant level of review?”
Yes, but the question here is NOT whether homosexuals have the right to marry. They have, all along.
The question is, “What is marriage?”. And the position of opponents of SSM, is that it isn’t a union between two people of the same gender, that what gays want to do isn’t “marriage”.
They’ve already got equal rights under the 14th amendment. They just don’t want to do what they’ve got an equal right to do.
The question is, “What is marriage?”
That’s a question with about 50 different answers.
The answer that should be relevant to the court is what the law says marriage is.
What the law says marriage is, is a contract, of a particular kind, that creates certain responsibilities, and confers certain privileges.
As far as I can tell, none of the responsibilities or privileges associated with the marriage contract are contingent upon the gender of either partner.
That’s how it looks to me. I’m sure the range of opinions will vary.
The argument that “they can get married, just to someone of the other gender” is specious.
Marty, thanks for the Obama quote. The rub, IMO, is here:
It’s pretty clear to me that we aren’t particularly serious about solving the problem of chronically poor and chronically dysfunctional people and communities.
I disagree with Brett at a fundamental level about how best to address stuff like this, but when he says that folks’ best available option is probably to get the hell out, I have to give credit where credit is due and say that, in a lot of cases, that’s probably right.
For example, TN Coates, who is a writer I admire and respect, grew up in that environment, worked hard, and succeeded, and part of his path to success was getting the hell out.
Coates no longer lives in Baltimore. He lives in NYC, and spends a lot of his free time in France.
And I’m not faulting him for that, or claiming hypocrisy on his part. It’s just reality. He had and has options, and he has taken them.
I think that places like the poor parts of Baltimore, and Detroit, and the South Bronx, and non-hipster Brooklyn, deserve better treatment than we give them, but I don’t think they are likely to get it. And, whatever assistance they receive will be resented, and held against them if they fail in any way. As they are likely to, because we all do.
My opinion about the general problem of chronic poverty and dysfunction is that folks are going to have to build their own institutions. Patrol their own neighborhoods, develop their own businesses, build up their own capital in both human and other forms, take control of their own schools, develop their own capacity to go to legal and economic battle with whatever other people and institutions seek to prey on them.
It’s insanely unfair that that is so, IMO, but I think it is so.
I think the Panthers had it right, at least that part of it, as did the Nation of Islam, with their emphasis on locally owned and run small businesses.
It’s not just inner cities either, and the number of places that face chronic poverty and dysfunction is only likely to rise.
The question is, “What is marriage?”
That’s a question with about 50 different answers.
The answer that should be relevant to the court is what the law says marriage is.
What the law says marriage is, is a contract, of a particular kind, that creates certain responsibilities, and confers certain privileges.
As far as I can tell, none of the responsibilities or privileges associated with the marriage contract are contingent upon the gender of either partner.
That’s how it looks to me. I’m sure the range of opinions will vary.
The argument that “they can get married, just to someone of the other gender” is specious.
Marty, thanks for the Obama quote. The rub, IMO, is here:
It’s pretty clear to me that we aren’t particularly serious about solving the problem of chronically poor and chronically dysfunctional people and communities.
I disagree with Brett at a fundamental level about how best to address stuff like this, but when he says that folks’ best available option is probably to get the hell out, I have to give credit where credit is due and say that, in a lot of cases, that’s probably right.
For example, TN Coates, who is a writer I admire and respect, grew up in that environment, worked hard, and succeeded, and part of his path to success was getting the hell out.
Coates no longer lives in Baltimore. He lives in NYC, and spends a lot of his free time in France.
And I’m not faulting him for that, or claiming hypocrisy on his part. It’s just reality. He had and has options, and he has taken them.
I think that places like the poor parts of Baltimore, and Detroit, and the South Bronx, and non-hipster Brooklyn, deserve better treatment than we give them, but I don’t think they are likely to get it. And, whatever assistance they receive will be resented, and held against them if they fail in any way. As they are likely to, because we all do.
My opinion about the general problem of chronic poverty and dysfunction is that folks are going to have to build their own institutions. Patrol their own neighborhoods, develop their own businesses, build up their own capital in both human and other forms, take control of their own schools, develop their own capacity to go to legal and economic battle with whatever other people and institutions seek to prey on them.
It’s insanely unfair that that is so, IMO, but I think it is so.
I think the Panthers had it right, at least that part of it, as did the Nation of Islam, with their emphasis on locally owned and run small businesses.
It’s not just inner cities either, and the number of places that face chronic poverty and dysfunction is only likely to rise.
The question is, “What is marriage?”
That’s a question with about 50 different answers.
The answer that should be relevant to the court is what the law says marriage is.
What the law says marriage is, is a contract, of a particular kind, that creates certain responsibilities, and confers certain privileges.
As far as I can tell, none of the responsibilities or privileges associated with the marriage contract are contingent upon the gender of either partner.
That’s how it looks to me. I’m sure the range of opinions will vary.
The argument that “they can get married, just to someone of the other gender” is specious.
Marty, thanks for the Obama quote. The rub, IMO, is here:
It’s pretty clear to me that we aren’t particularly serious about solving the problem of chronically poor and chronically dysfunctional people and communities.
I disagree with Brett at a fundamental level about how best to address stuff like this, but when he says that folks’ best available option is probably to get the hell out, I have to give credit where credit is due and say that, in a lot of cases, that’s probably right.
For example, TN Coates, who is a writer I admire and respect, grew up in that environment, worked hard, and succeeded, and part of his path to success was getting the hell out.
Coates no longer lives in Baltimore. He lives in NYC, and spends a lot of his free time in France.
And I’m not faulting him for that, or claiming hypocrisy on his part. It’s just reality. He had and has options, and he has taken them.
I think that places like the poor parts of Baltimore, and Detroit, and the South Bronx, and non-hipster Brooklyn, deserve better treatment than we give them, but I don’t think they are likely to get it. And, whatever assistance they receive will be resented, and held against them if they fail in any way. As they are likely to, because we all do.
My opinion about the general problem of chronic poverty and dysfunction is that folks are going to have to build their own institutions. Patrol their own neighborhoods, develop their own businesses, build up their own capital in both human and other forms, take control of their own schools, develop their own capacity to go to legal and economic battle with whatever other people and institutions seek to prey on them.
It’s insanely unfair that that is so, IMO, but I think it is so.
I think the Panthers had it right, at least that part of it, as did the Nation of Islam, with their emphasis on locally owned and run small businesses.
It’s not just inner cities either, and the number of places that face chronic poverty and dysfunction is only likely to rise.
Pander Paul will look into it:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-jade-helm
At this point, I favor a military takeover of Texas because I believe, I do, in doing everything to make the wishes, hopes, and dreams of children come true.
Pander Paul will look into it:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-jade-helm
At this point, I favor a military takeover of Texas because I believe, I do, in doing everything to make the wishes, hopes, and dreams of children come true.
Pander Paul will look into it:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-jade-helm
At this point, I favor a military takeover of Texas because I believe, I do, in doing everything to make the wishes, hopes, and dreams of children come true.
Drum’s on the Freddie Gray and lead angle.
Drum’s on the Freddie Gray and lead angle.
Drum’s on the Freddie Gray and lead angle.
The question is, “What is marriage?”.
That’s a fair question with a lot of different answers, and its a fair question. And me, personally, I don’t give two shits how anybody answers that for themselves.
I just don’t think the state can answer it a restrictive way, and have that answer be consistent with individual liberty. Much like I’m uncomfortable with the government using restrictive definitions of any fundamental right. Freedom of the press has been understood in a sense far beyond printing presses and traditional journalism, for example.
Marriage has been defined a variety of ways by various people, cultures, and religions, and has been recognized as a fundamental right in the US. As such, if the government wishes to enforce a specific definition, it should have to pass strict scrutiny.
My opinion about the general problem of chronic poverty and dysfunction is that folks are going to have to build their own institutions.
Nigel posted a link in another thread which I think is relevant and worth reading:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/04/generation-nowwhat-people-do-when-there-seems-to-be-nothing-to-do/391571/
The question is, “What is marriage?”.
That’s a fair question with a lot of different answers, and its a fair question. And me, personally, I don’t give two shits how anybody answers that for themselves.
I just don’t think the state can answer it a restrictive way, and have that answer be consistent with individual liberty. Much like I’m uncomfortable with the government using restrictive definitions of any fundamental right. Freedom of the press has been understood in a sense far beyond printing presses and traditional journalism, for example.
Marriage has been defined a variety of ways by various people, cultures, and religions, and has been recognized as a fundamental right in the US. As such, if the government wishes to enforce a specific definition, it should have to pass strict scrutiny.
My opinion about the general problem of chronic poverty and dysfunction is that folks are going to have to build their own institutions.
Nigel posted a link in another thread which I think is relevant and worth reading:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/04/generation-nowwhat-people-do-when-there-seems-to-be-nothing-to-do/391571/
The question is, “What is marriage?”.
That’s a fair question with a lot of different answers, and its a fair question. And me, personally, I don’t give two shits how anybody answers that for themselves.
I just don’t think the state can answer it a restrictive way, and have that answer be consistent with individual liberty. Much like I’m uncomfortable with the government using restrictive definitions of any fundamental right. Freedom of the press has been understood in a sense far beyond printing presses and traditional journalism, for example.
Marriage has been defined a variety of ways by various people, cultures, and religions, and has been recognized as a fundamental right in the US. As such, if the government wishes to enforce a specific definition, it should have to pass strict scrutiny.
My opinion about the general problem of chronic poverty and dysfunction is that folks are going to have to build their own institutions.
Nigel posted a link in another thread which I think is relevant and worth reading:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/04/generation-nowwhat-people-do-when-there-seems-to-be-nothing-to-do/391571/
Very interesting link, thanks Nigel for posting, and thanks thompson for reposting.
Very interesting link, thanks Nigel for posting, and thanks thompson for reposting.
Very interesting link, thanks Nigel for posting, and thanks thompson for reposting.
“The answer that should be relevant to the court is what the law says marriage is.
What the law says marriage is, is a contract, of a particular kind, that creates certain responsibilities, and confers certain privileges.”
I’m pretty darned sure that, before the courts got into the matter, what the law said was that marriage is a contract, of a certain kind, between a man and a woman… IOW, you’ve elided exactly the part of the law the courts have been busy overturning.
So, what the courts have been doing, is looking at what the law says marriage is, and deciding they didn’t like what the law said.
“I just don’t think the state can answer it a restrictive way, and have that answer be consistent with individual liberty.”
No argument from me, there. Some aspects of individual liberty are to be found in the Constitution, and some aren’t. The proper way to put them there, if that is desired, is by Article V, not by the courts deciding that they’re going to redefine words in ways the democratic process has just gone to great lengths to rule out.
“The answer that should be relevant to the court is what the law says marriage is.
What the law says marriage is, is a contract, of a particular kind, that creates certain responsibilities, and confers certain privileges.”
I’m pretty darned sure that, before the courts got into the matter, what the law said was that marriage is a contract, of a certain kind, between a man and a woman… IOW, you’ve elided exactly the part of the law the courts have been busy overturning.
So, what the courts have been doing, is looking at what the law says marriage is, and deciding they didn’t like what the law said.
“I just don’t think the state can answer it a restrictive way, and have that answer be consistent with individual liberty.”
No argument from me, there. Some aspects of individual liberty are to be found in the Constitution, and some aren’t. The proper way to put them there, if that is desired, is by Article V, not by the courts deciding that they’re going to redefine words in ways the democratic process has just gone to great lengths to rule out.
“The answer that should be relevant to the court is what the law says marriage is.
What the law says marriage is, is a contract, of a particular kind, that creates certain responsibilities, and confers certain privileges.”
I’m pretty darned sure that, before the courts got into the matter, what the law said was that marriage is a contract, of a certain kind, between a man and a woman… IOW, you’ve elided exactly the part of the law the courts have been busy overturning.
So, what the courts have been doing, is looking at what the law says marriage is, and deciding they didn’t like what the law said.
“I just don’t think the state can answer it a restrictive way, and have that answer be consistent with individual liberty.”
No argument from me, there. Some aspects of individual liberty are to be found in the Constitution, and some aren’t. The proper way to put them there, if that is desired, is by Article V, not by the courts deciding that they’re going to redefine words in ways the democratic process has just gone to great lengths to rule out.
thompson, many thanks for the link. there are a few things in there that I may follow up on…
thompson, many thanks for the link. there are a few things in there that I may follow up on…
thompson, many thanks for the link. there are a few things in there that I may follow up on…
what the courts have been doing, is looking at what the law […] is, and deciding they didn’t like what the law said.
because that’s what courts especially the Supreme Court, do.
what the courts have been doing, is looking at what the law […] is, and deciding they didn’t like what the law said.
because that’s what courts especially the Supreme Court, do.
what the courts have been doing, is looking at what the law […] is, and deciding they didn’t like what the law said.
because that’s what courts especially the Supreme Court, do.
the judiciary cannot change its interpretation once an amendment has failed to be ratified if the new interpretation is consistent with the intent of the failed amendment.
So if I can get an amendment out for ratification that says that “the United States is a Christian country” (which, heaven knows, has been proposed), and it fails, then any court decision which is in line with Christian theology is invalid? Because, the amendment having failed, the United States must be not a Christian country.
And if I can get one out that says that the US is a libertarian country, that means that nothing of a libertarian view can ever again be the result of a Court decision?
Anybody got a list of all of the Amendments which have failed ratification? Just so we all know what the Courts arre forbidden (under Brett’s view) from deciding.
the judiciary cannot change its interpretation once an amendment has failed to be ratified if the new interpretation is consistent with the intent of the failed amendment.
So if I can get an amendment out for ratification that says that “the United States is a Christian country” (which, heaven knows, has been proposed), and it fails, then any court decision which is in line with Christian theology is invalid? Because, the amendment having failed, the United States must be not a Christian country.
And if I can get one out that says that the US is a libertarian country, that means that nothing of a libertarian view can ever again be the result of a Court decision?
Anybody got a list of all of the Amendments which have failed ratification? Just so we all know what the Courts arre forbidden (under Brett’s view) from deciding.
the judiciary cannot change its interpretation once an amendment has failed to be ratified if the new interpretation is consistent with the intent of the failed amendment.
So if I can get an amendment out for ratification that says that “the United States is a Christian country” (which, heaven knows, has been proposed), and it fails, then any court decision which is in line with Christian theology is invalid? Because, the amendment having failed, the United States must be not a Christian country.
And if I can get one out that says that the US is a libertarian country, that means that nothing of a libertarian view can ever again be the result of a Court decision?
Anybody got a list of all of the Amendments which have failed ratification? Just so we all know what the Courts arre forbidden (under Brett’s view) from deciding.
Some aspects of individual liberty are to be found in the Constitution, and some aren’t.
Well, perhaps that’s where we part ways. I don’t view the enumerated rights as a restrictive list. The right to marry, to me, is inalienable. Should the government want to provide legal recognition for some aspects, strict scrutiny should be followed. IMVHO.
Some aspects of individual liberty are to be found in the Constitution, and some aren’t.
Well, perhaps that’s where we part ways. I don’t view the enumerated rights as a restrictive list. The right to marry, to me, is inalienable. Should the government want to provide legal recognition for some aspects, strict scrutiny should be followed. IMVHO.
Some aspects of individual liberty are to be found in the Constitution, and some aren’t.
Well, perhaps that’s where we part ways. I don’t view the enumerated rights as a restrictive list. The right to marry, to me, is inalienable. Should the government want to provide legal recognition for some aspects, strict scrutiny should be followed. IMVHO.
One other thought. The 14th (and 15th) Amendment only got ratified because the Confederate States were forced to do so in order to regain representation in Congress. In short, it was done under duress — and so the ratification could be argued to be invalid. At least, any contract signed under duress would be held invalid, so how could this be?
Assume, for the sake of discussion, that that view prevailed. Would that mean that there is now no right to due process? Or to equal protection? Seriously — if you hold that failure to ratify amounts to rejection of everything in the amendment, then wouldn’t that follow?
One other thought. The 14th (and 15th) Amendment only got ratified because the Confederate States were forced to do so in order to regain representation in Congress. In short, it was done under duress — and so the ratification could be argued to be invalid. At least, any contract signed under duress would be held invalid, so how could this be?
Assume, for the sake of discussion, that that view prevailed. Would that mean that there is now no right to due process? Or to equal protection? Seriously — if you hold that failure to ratify amounts to rejection of everything in the amendment, then wouldn’t that follow?
One other thought. The 14th (and 15th) Amendment only got ratified because the Confederate States were forced to do so in order to regain representation in Congress. In short, it was done under duress — and so the ratification could be argued to be invalid. At least, any contract signed under duress would be held invalid, so how could this be?
Assume, for the sake of discussion, that that view prevailed. Would that mean that there is now no right to due process? Or to equal protection? Seriously — if you hold that failure to ratify amounts to rejection of everything in the amendment, then wouldn’t that follow?
wj: http://www.usconstitution.net/constamfail.html
wj: http://www.usconstitution.net/constamfail.html
wj: http://www.usconstitution.net/constamfail.html
I’m pretty darned sure that, before the courts got into the matter, what the law said was that marriage is a contract, of a certain kind, between a man and a woman
Yeah, you’re probably right. I withdraw my comment.
So, what the courts have been doing, is looking at what the law says marriage is, and deciding they didn’t like what the law said.
Specifically, they have been deciding whether the law as written is valid.
As cleek notes, it’s one of the things they are obliged to do.
I’m not sure the degree to which personal druthers are involved. I doubt you are, either.
I’m pretty darned sure that, before the courts got into the matter, what the law said was that marriage is a contract, of a certain kind, between a man and a woman
Yeah, you’re probably right. I withdraw my comment.
So, what the courts have been doing, is looking at what the law says marriage is, and deciding they didn’t like what the law said.
Specifically, they have been deciding whether the law as written is valid.
As cleek notes, it’s one of the things they are obliged to do.
I’m not sure the degree to which personal druthers are involved. I doubt you are, either.
I’m pretty darned sure that, before the courts got into the matter, what the law said was that marriage is a contract, of a certain kind, between a man and a woman
Yeah, you’re probably right. I withdraw my comment.
So, what the courts have been doing, is looking at what the law says marriage is, and deciding they didn’t like what the law said.
Specifically, they have been deciding whether the law as written is valid.
As cleek notes, it’s one of the things they are obliged to do.
I’m not sure the degree to which personal druthers are involved. I doubt you are, either.
I don’t view the enumerated rights as a restrictive list.
Neither does Brett, when it suits him.
I don’t view the enumerated rights as a restrictive list.
Neither does Brett, when it suits him.
I don’t view the enumerated rights as a restrictive list.
Neither does Brett, when it suits him.
Specifically, they have been deciding whether the law as written is valid.
adding:
courts decide if a law is valid in the context of the current understandings and interpretations of other relevant laws.
even religions do this.
Specifically, they have been deciding whether the law as written is valid.
adding:
courts decide if a law is valid in the context of the current understandings and interpretations of other relevant laws.
even religions do this.
Specifically, they have been deciding whether the law as written is valid.
adding:
courts decide if a law is valid in the context of the current understandings and interpretations of other relevant laws.
even religions do this.
Per the 9th amendment, it isn’t a restrictive list. That doesn’t mean any right anybody wants is automatically a constitutional right, either.
The 9th amendment was to secure traditional rights which didn’t get enumerated, not to serve as a back door for the judiciary to declare anything they felt like a constitutional right.
SSM, to put it mildly, is not a traditional right, thought so obvious it never occured to anybody it needed enumeration. It’s about as far from that as it is possible to get.
Per the 9th amendment, it isn’t a restrictive list. That doesn’t mean any right anybody wants is automatically a constitutional right, either.
The 9th amendment was to secure traditional rights which didn’t get enumerated, not to serve as a back door for the judiciary to declare anything they felt like a constitutional right.
SSM, to put it mildly, is not a traditional right, thought so obvious it never occured to anybody it needed enumeration. It’s about as far from that as it is possible to get.
Per the 9th amendment, it isn’t a restrictive list. That doesn’t mean any right anybody wants is automatically a constitutional right, either.
The 9th amendment was to secure traditional rights which didn’t get enumerated, not to serve as a back door for the judiciary to declare anything they felt like a constitutional right.
SSM, to put it mildly, is not a traditional right, thought so obvious it never occured to anybody it needed enumeration. It’s about as far from that as it is possible to get.
The 9th amendment was to secure traditional rights which didn’t get enumerated
not everyone will agree with that, and especially not with the word “traditional” (which obviously means different things to those with different traditions).
The 9th amendment was to secure traditional rights which didn’t get enumerated
not everyone will agree with that, and especially not with the word “traditional” (which obviously means different things to those with different traditions).
The 9th amendment was to secure traditional rights which didn’t get enumerated
not everyone will agree with that, and especially not with the word “traditional” (which obviously means different things to those with different traditions).
The 9th amendment was to secure traditional rights
Your use of “traditional” here seems a bit squirrely.
I think the word you’re looking for is “natural”.
The 9th is a simple statement that the fact that certain rights are specifically called out in the Bill of Rights does not mean that any right not so called out is not held by the people.
What those rights are isn’t stated, nor are any criteria given for what is or isn’t eligible to be considered a right.
The understanding was that humans inherently possessed certain natural rights, that flowed more or less automatically from their status as sentient, autonomous beings.
Is your use of “traditional” here intended to limit what can be considered a natural right to what people living in the late 18th C would have recognized as such?
If that’s the bar, a hell of a lot more than SSM is going to get thrown out the window.
The 9th amendment was to secure traditional rights
Your use of “traditional” here seems a bit squirrely.
I think the word you’re looking for is “natural”.
The 9th is a simple statement that the fact that certain rights are specifically called out in the Bill of Rights does not mean that any right not so called out is not held by the people.
What those rights are isn’t stated, nor are any criteria given for what is or isn’t eligible to be considered a right.
The understanding was that humans inherently possessed certain natural rights, that flowed more or less automatically from their status as sentient, autonomous beings.
Is your use of “traditional” here intended to limit what can be considered a natural right to what people living in the late 18th C would have recognized as such?
If that’s the bar, a hell of a lot more than SSM is going to get thrown out the window.
The 9th amendment was to secure traditional rights
Your use of “traditional” here seems a bit squirrely.
I think the word you’re looking for is “natural”.
The 9th is a simple statement that the fact that certain rights are specifically called out in the Bill of Rights does not mean that any right not so called out is not held by the people.
What those rights are isn’t stated, nor are any criteria given for what is or isn’t eligible to be considered a right.
The understanding was that humans inherently possessed certain natural rights, that flowed more or less automatically from their status as sentient, autonomous beings.
Is your use of “traditional” here intended to limit what can be considered a natural right to what people living in the late 18th C would have recognized as such?
If that’s the bar, a hell of a lot more than SSM is going to get thrown out the window.
“The 9th is a simple statement that the fact that certain rights are specifically called out in the Bill of Rights does not mean that any right not so called out is not held by the people.”
So wait, it EXPLICITLY says that not passing an amendment to secure a right DOES NOT MEAN that there is no such right?
How does that fit with “ERA didn’t pass, so we should consider ERAish rights invalid”?
Oh yeah, I forgot: “Calvinball. All the way down”
“The 9th is a simple statement that the fact that certain rights are specifically called out in the Bill of Rights does not mean that any right not so called out is not held by the people.”
So wait, it EXPLICITLY says that not passing an amendment to secure a right DOES NOT MEAN that there is no such right?
How does that fit with “ERA didn’t pass, so we should consider ERAish rights invalid”?
Oh yeah, I forgot: “Calvinball. All the way down”
“The 9th is a simple statement that the fact that certain rights are specifically called out in the Bill of Rights does not mean that any right not so called out is not held by the people.”
So wait, it EXPLICITLY says that not passing an amendment to secure a right DOES NOT MEAN that there is no such right?
How does that fit with “ERA didn’t pass, so we should consider ERAish rights invalid”?
Oh yeah, I forgot: “Calvinball. All the way down”
Thanks, Cleek!
I particularly like the Anti-Title Amendment, which reads in part:
(emphasis added)
Which would be a real blow to many of our politicians, who have almost all accepted presents of one kind or another from foreign governments (specifically chiefs of state). After all, “of any kind whatsoever” would necessarily include even things like bottles of whiskey or wine. We might have to elect a whole new Congress, not to mention masses of state legislators. Wouldn’t that be fun!
Thanks, Cleek!
I particularly like the Anti-Title Amendment, which reads in part:
(emphasis added)
Which would be a real blow to many of our politicians, who have almost all accepted presents of one kind or another from foreign governments (specifically chiefs of state). After all, “of any kind whatsoever” would necessarily include even things like bottles of whiskey or wine. We might have to elect a whole new Congress, not to mention masses of state legislators. Wouldn’t that be fun!
Thanks, Cleek!
I particularly like the Anti-Title Amendment, which reads in part:
(emphasis added)
Which would be a real blow to many of our politicians, who have almost all accepted presents of one kind or another from foreign governments (specifically chiefs of state). After all, “of any kind whatsoever” would necessarily include even things like bottles of whiskey or wine. We might have to elect a whole new Congress, not to mention masses of state legislators. Wouldn’t that be fun!
So, your position is that the 9th amendment is basically a blank check for the judiciary to invent any rights they feel like? I think they’ve already settled on the 14th amendment for that role.
So, your position is that the 9th amendment is basically a blank check for the judiciary to invent any rights they feel like? I think they’ve already settled on the 14th amendment for that role.
So, your position is that the 9th amendment is basically a blank check for the judiciary to invent any rights they feel like? I think they’ve already settled on the 14th amendment for that role.
The understanding was that humans inherently possessed certain natural rights, that flowed more or less automatically from their status as sentient, autonomous beings.
Since it was largely the same men involved in both, it would seem that those natural rights would necessarily include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And what is marriage, including gay marriage, but the pursuit of happiness?
The understanding was that humans inherently possessed certain natural rights, that flowed more or less automatically from their status as sentient, autonomous beings.
Since it was largely the same men involved in both, it would seem that those natural rights would necessarily include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And what is marriage, including gay marriage, but the pursuit of happiness?
The understanding was that humans inherently possessed certain natural rights, that flowed more or less automatically from their status as sentient, autonomous beings.
Since it was largely the same men involved in both, it would seem that those natural rights would necessarily include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And what is marriage, including gay marriage, but the pursuit of happiness?
SSM, to put it mildly, is not a traditional right, thought so obvious it never occured to anybody it needed enumeration. It’s about as far from that as it is possible to get.
Mixed marriages weren’t traditional either; is Loving wrongly decided?
Per a straightforward reading of Loving, marriage to a partner of choice is a fundamental right. Trying to redefine marriage so it only includes marriages that you approve of requires a restrictive interpretation of what marriage is – it’s not fundamentally an enduring sworn partnership/contract/what-have-you, but a coupling of specific sorts of people. If it’s reasonable to use “tradition” to declare the two people can’t be of the same gender, it’s equally reasonable to be able to impose other “traditional” restrictions on choice of partners, such as requiring them to be of the same “race”. Loving was pretty clear that this wasn’t reasonable. IMO, an argument from “tradition” is pretty shaky following Loving.
(Note that this doesn’t allow for box turtles to marry, because they’re not “people”. And it doesn’t inherently allow for polyandry and polygamy because those aren’t restricting choice of marriage partners, but rather restricting the right to be married to more than one person at once, which is another can of worms.)
SSM, to put it mildly, is not a traditional right, thought so obvious it never occured to anybody it needed enumeration. It’s about as far from that as it is possible to get.
Mixed marriages weren’t traditional either; is Loving wrongly decided?
Per a straightforward reading of Loving, marriage to a partner of choice is a fundamental right. Trying to redefine marriage so it only includes marriages that you approve of requires a restrictive interpretation of what marriage is – it’s not fundamentally an enduring sworn partnership/contract/what-have-you, but a coupling of specific sorts of people. If it’s reasonable to use “tradition” to declare the two people can’t be of the same gender, it’s equally reasonable to be able to impose other “traditional” restrictions on choice of partners, such as requiring them to be of the same “race”. Loving was pretty clear that this wasn’t reasonable. IMO, an argument from “tradition” is pretty shaky following Loving.
(Note that this doesn’t allow for box turtles to marry, because they’re not “people”. And it doesn’t inherently allow for polyandry and polygamy because those aren’t restricting choice of marriage partners, but rather restricting the right to be married to more than one person at once, which is another can of worms.)
SSM, to put it mildly, is not a traditional right, thought so obvious it never occured to anybody it needed enumeration. It’s about as far from that as it is possible to get.
Mixed marriages weren’t traditional either; is Loving wrongly decided?
Per a straightforward reading of Loving, marriage to a partner of choice is a fundamental right. Trying to redefine marriage so it only includes marriages that you approve of requires a restrictive interpretation of what marriage is – it’s not fundamentally an enduring sworn partnership/contract/what-have-you, but a coupling of specific sorts of people. If it’s reasonable to use “tradition” to declare the two people can’t be of the same gender, it’s equally reasonable to be able to impose other “traditional” restrictions on choice of partners, such as requiring them to be of the same “race”. Loving was pretty clear that this wasn’t reasonable. IMO, an argument from “tradition” is pretty shaky following Loving.
(Note that this doesn’t allow for box turtles to marry, because they’re not “people”. And it doesn’t inherently allow for polyandry and polygamy because those aren’t restricting choice of marriage partners, but rather restricting the right to be married to more than one person at once, which is another can of worms.)
Thanks for your contribution, Calvin.
Thanks for your contribution, Calvin.
Thanks for your contribution, Calvin.
“Mixed marriages weren’t traditional either; is Loving wrongly decided?”
Mixed marriages were common enough they felt the need in the south to outlaw them. Nobody doubted a union between a man and woman of different races was a “marriage”, and in fact laws against mixed marriages essentially only outlawed them where one of the races was cacasian. Black and Indian? Chinese and Black? No problem. One of the points against them in Loving, as a matter of fact.
That the 14th disposed of laws against mixed marriages was obvious enough to be a talking point against it, and it was almost immediately applied to overturn such laws.
“Mixed marriages weren’t traditional either; is Loving wrongly decided?”
Mixed marriages were common enough they felt the need in the south to outlaw them. Nobody doubted a union between a man and woman of different races was a “marriage”, and in fact laws against mixed marriages essentially only outlawed them where one of the races was cacasian. Black and Indian? Chinese and Black? No problem. One of the points against them in Loving, as a matter of fact.
That the 14th disposed of laws against mixed marriages was obvious enough to be a talking point against it, and it was almost immediately applied to overturn such laws.
“Mixed marriages weren’t traditional either; is Loving wrongly decided?”
Mixed marriages were common enough they felt the need in the south to outlaw them. Nobody doubted a union between a man and woman of different races was a “marriage”, and in fact laws against mixed marriages essentially only outlawed them where one of the races was cacasian. Black and Indian? Chinese and Black? No problem. One of the points against them in Loving, as a matter of fact.
That the 14th disposed of laws against mixed marriages was obvious enough to be a talking point against it, and it was almost immediately applied to overturn such laws.
That very neatly elides the question, Brett. Mixed marriages (yes, of a particular sort) ran counter to tradition, and were thus banned. Loving overturned that ban. Was it wrongly decided, or was it reasonable for it to assert that exclusive intimate and social partnerships (“marriages”) are a fundamental right and the government has no business in restricting the choice of individuals regardless of prevailing traditions?
That very neatly elides the question, Brett. Mixed marriages (yes, of a particular sort) ran counter to tradition, and were thus banned. Loving overturned that ban. Was it wrongly decided, or was it reasonable for it to assert that exclusive intimate and social partnerships (“marriages”) are a fundamental right and the government has no business in restricting the choice of individuals regardless of prevailing traditions?
That very neatly elides the question, Brett. Mixed marriages (yes, of a particular sort) ran counter to tradition, and were thus banned. Loving overturned that ban. Was it wrongly decided, or was it reasonable for it to assert that exclusive intimate and social partnerships (“marriages”) are a fundamental right and the government has no business in restricting the choice of individuals regardless of prevailing traditions?
(And if you want to argue that, again, “unacceptable” mixed marriages already existed but were socially disapproved of, do you actually want to argue that SSMs haven’t existed through history as well, per the partners in question and possibly hidden to evade prosecution on the basis of laws outlawing homosexuality?
Your whole argument hinges on your ability to beg the question. If we allow you to say that the fundamental aspect of marriage is an exclusive enduring sworn intimate and social partnership agreement between a man and a woman, you have an argument. If we say instead assert that the fundamental aspect of marriage is an exclusive enduring sworn intimate and social partnership agreement, you don’t. That’s what all of your arguments come down to; everything else is smoke and mirrors. And while citing “tradition” props up your definition, it only does so if we consider only traditions that agree with you, and leads us back to the question of why we should credit those traditional understandings as being meaningful understandings of “legitimate” marriages while rejecting understandings of marriage that lead to anti-miscegenation laws.
It’s worth pointing out that anti-miscegenation laws weren’t quite so colorblind among non-whites as you blithely asserted, BTW. It’s also worth noting that your upthread comments about rejected amendments meaning that the SC can’t re-interpret to get around existing interpretations means Loving would be illegitimate…)
(And if you want to argue that, again, “unacceptable” mixed marriages already existed but were socially disapproved of, do you actually want to argue that SSMs haven’t existed through history as well, per the partners in question and possibly hidden to evade prosecution on the basis of laws outlawing homosexuality?
Your whole argument hinges on your ability to beg the question. If we allow you to say that the fundamental aspect of marriage is an exclusive enduring sworn intimate and social partnership agreement between a man and a woman, you have an argument. If we say instead assert that the fundamental aspect of marriage is an exclusive enduring sworn intimate and social partnership agreement, you don’t. That’s what all of your arguments come down to; everything else is smoke and mirrors. And while citing “tradition” props up your definition, it only does so if we consider only traditions that agree with you, and leads us back to the question of why we should credit those traditional understandings as being meaningful understandings of “legitimate” marriages while rejecting understandings of marriage that lead to anti-miscegenation laws.
It’s worth pointing out that anti-miscegenation laws weren’t quite so colorblind among non-whites as you blithely asserted, BTW. It’s also worth noting that your upthread comments about rejected amendments meaning that the SC can’t re-interpret to get around existing interpretations means Loving would be illegitimate…)
(And if you want to argue that, again, “unacceptable” mixed marriages already existed but were socially disapproved of, do you actually want to argue that SSMs haven’t existed through history as well, per the partners in question and possibly hidden to evade prosecution on the basis of laws outlawing homosexuality?
Your whole argument hinges on your ability to beg the question. If we allow you to say that the fundamental aspect of marriage is an exclusive enduring sworn intimate and social partnership agreement between a man and a woman, you have an argument. If we say instead assert that the fundamental aspect of marriage is an exclusive enduring sworn intimate and social partnership agreement, you don’t. That’s what all of your arguments come down to; everything else is smoke and mirrors. And while citing “tradition” props up your definition, it only does so if we consider only traditions that agree with you, and leads us back to the question of why we should credit those traditional understandings as being meaningful understandings of “legitimate” marriages while rejecting understandings of marriage that lead to anti-miscegenation laws.
It’s worth pointing out that anti-miscegenation laws weren’t quite so colorblind among non-whites as you blithely asserted, BTW. It’s also worth noting that your upthread comments about rejected amendments meaning that the SC can’t re-interpret to get around existing interpretations means Loving would be illegitimate…)
Gah, NVM that last sentence. That’s precisely backwards.
Gah, NVM that last sentence. That’s precisely backwards.
Gah, NVM that last sentence. That’s precisely backwards.
No, of course it wasn’t wrongly decided. Loving was just a restoration of enforcement of the 14th amendment as intended, and as it was proceeding until the Supreme court spiked the amendment with bad faith rulings.
And man and woman? Not a tradition, that’s what “marriage” MEANT. Meant world-wide until about 15 years ago. Now, polygamy, and to a lesser extent, polyandry, these have very strong claims to being traditional forms of marriage. SSM has no such claim.
Calling SSM traditional marriage is like calling haggis “oatmeal”.
No, of course it wasn’t wrongly decided. Loving was just a restoration of enforcement of the 14th amendment as intended, and as it was proceeding until the Supreme court spiked the amendment with bad faith rulings.
And man and woman? Not a tradition, that’s what “marriage” MEANT. Meant world-wide until about 15 years ago. Now, polygamy, and to a lesser extent, polyandry, these have very strong claims to being traditional forms of marriage. SSM has no such claim.
Calling SSM traditional marriage is like calling haggis “oatmeal”.
No, of course it wasn’t wrongly decided. Loving was just a restoration of enforcement of the 14th amendment as intended, and as it was proceeding until the Supreme court spiked the amendment with bad faith rulings.
And man and woman? Not a tradition, that’s what “marriage” MEANT. Meant world-wide until about 15 years ago. Now, polygamy, and to a lesser extent, polyandry, these have very strong claims to being traditional forms of marriage. SSM has no such claim.
Calling SSM traditional marriage is like calling haggis “oatmeal”.
So, your position is that the 9th amendment is basically a blank check for the judiciary to invent any rights they feel like?
My position is that what is covered by the 9th isn’t limited to what people in the 18th C would have been comfortable with.
Calling SSM traditional marriage is like calling haggis “oatmeal”.
Boston marriage.
So, your position is that the 9th amendment is basically a blank check for the judiciary to invent any rights they feel like?
My position is that what is covered by the 9th isn’t limited to what people in the 18th C would have been comfortable with.
Calling SSM traditional marriage is like calling haggis “oatmeal”.
Boston marriage.
So, your position is that the 9th amendment is basically a blank check for the judiciary to invent any rights they feel like?
My position is that what is covered by the 9th isn’t limited to what people in the 18th C would have been comfortable with.
Calling SSM traditional marriage is like calling haggis “oatmeal”.
Boston marriage.
Come to think of it… would Brett’s ERA argument mean that all we need to do to preserve Roe v. Wade for all time short of anti-abortion amendments would be to present an amendment to overturn it that’s so shoddily written it’d never get ratified? Given his comments in the various Hugo threads, it seems like his understanding of democracy would mean that a thoroughly bad-faith endeavor of that sort would be perfectly acceptable. Likewise were we to craft an extremely awful amendment that, among other things, prevented Congress from having the authority to restrict firearms ownership – then the SC can’t ever try to limit Congressional firearms bans! In fact, wouldn’t the smart move at that point be to introduce bills immediately before introducing poorly-crafted bad-faith amendments specifically countering the bills?
(Or no, maybe the whole “if an amendment wasn’t ratified, parallel reasoning to it is precluded” argument is silly…)
Come to think of it… would Brett’s ERA argument mean that all we need to do to preserve Roe v. Wade for all time short of anti-abortion amendments would be to present an amendment to overturn it that’s so shoddily written it’d never get ratified? Given his comments in the various Hugo threads, it seems like his understanding of democracy would mean that a thoroughly bad-faith endeavor of that sort would be perfectly acceptable. Likewise were we to craft an extremely awful amendment that, among other things, prevented Congress from having the authority to restrict firearms ownership – then the SC can’t ever try to limit Congressional firearms bans! In fact, wouldn’t the smart move at that point be to introduce bills immediately before introducing poorly-crafted bad-faith amendments specifically countering the bills?
(Or no, maybe the whole “if an amendment wasn’t ratified, parallel reasoning to it is precluded” argument is silly…)
Come to think of it… would Brett’s ERA argument mean that all we need to do to preserve Roe v. Wade for all time short of anti-abortion amendments would be to present an amendment to overturn it that’s so shoddily written it’d never get ratified? Given his comments in the various Hugo threads, it seems like his understanding of democracy would mean that a thoroughly bad-faith endeavor of that sort would be perfectly acceptable. Likewise were we to craft an extremely awful amendment that, among other things, prevented Congress from having the authority to restrict firearms ownership – then the SC can’t ever try to limit Congressional firearms bans! In fact, wouldn’t the smart move at that point be to introduce bills immediately before introducing poorly-crafted bad-faith amendments specifically countering the bills?
(Or no, maybe the whole “if an amendment wasn’t ratified, parallel reasoning to it is precluded” argument is silly…)
Until quite recently, “marriage” included “common-law marriages” — cases where two people simply moved in together, without recourse to church or state. Indeed, for most people, that was “traditional marriage.” I believe there are still several states in the US where this is considered a marriage, for at least some legal purposes.
And there are certainly examples of that happening with homosexuals for a long time.
Until quite recently, “marriage” included “common-law marriages” — cases where two people simply moved in together, without recourse to church or state. Indeed, for most people, that was “traditional marriage.” I believe there are still several states in the US where this is considered a marriage, for at least some legal purposes.
And there are certainly examples of that happening with homosexuals for a long time.
Until quite recently, “marriage” included “common-law marriages” — cases where two people simply moved in together, without recourse to church or state. Indeed, for most people, that was “traditional marriage.” I believe there are still several states in the US where this is considered a marriage, for at least some legal purposes.
And there are certainly examples of that happening with homosexuals for a long time.
So if I have a sex change operation, who am I allowed to marry and who decides?
So if I have a sex change operation, who am I allowed to marry and who decides?
So if I have a sex change operation, who am I allowed to marry and who decides?
Brett: That’s because the riot was scheduled in advance. It wasn’t spontaneous.
Or was it? The evidence increasingly leads one to the conclusion that the only scheduling in advance was by the police, not the kids.
Read and learn more. Assuming you’re willing to learn.
Brett: That’s because the riot was scheduled in advance. It wasn’t spontaneous.
Or was it? The evidence increasingly leads one to the conclusion that the only scheduling in advance was by the police, not the kids.
Read and learn more. Assuming you’re willing to learn.
Brett: That’s because the riot was scheduled in advance. It wasn’t spontaneous.
Or was it? The evidence increasingly leads one to the conclusion that the only scheduling in advance was by the police, not the kids.
Read and learn more. Assuming you’re willing to learn.
that’s what “marriage” MEANT. Meant world-wide until about 15 years ago
history disagrees.
the common definition of marriage is M+F, but that’s simply because most people are heterosexual. but records of same sex unions (even state- or culture-sanctioned) goes back basically as long as there’s written history.
and M+F marriage itself has changed radically over time. there is no single, traditional marriage any more than there’s a single, traditional way to raise children.
that’s what “marriage” MEANT. Meant world-wide until about 15 years ago
history disagrees.
the common definition of marriage is M+F, but that’s simply because most people are heterosexual. but records of same sex unions (even state- or culture-sanctioned) goes back basically as long as there’s written history.
and M+F marriage itself has changed radically over time. there is no single, traditional marriage any more than there’s a single, traditional way to raise children.
that’s what “marriage” MEANT. Meant world-wide until about 15 years ago
history disagrees.
the common definition of marriage is M+F, but that’s simply because most people are heterosexual. but records of same sex unions (even state- or culture-sanctioned) goes back basically as long as there’s written history.
and M+F marriage itself has changed radically over time. there is no single, traditional marriage any more than there’s a single, traditional way to raise children.
And all the arguing about what marriage is/meant is part of why I like the straightforward unconstitutional sex discrimination approach because you don’t have to get into all that.
1: Is the state making a sex/gender based classification? Yes.
2: Does the law survive intermediate/strict scrutiny? No.
End of case.
And all the arguing about what marriage is/meant is part of why I like the straightforward unconstitutional sex discrimination approach because you don’t have to get into all that.
1: Is the state making a sex/gender based classification? Yes.
2: Does the law survive intermediate/strict scrutiny? No.
End of case.
And all the arguing about what marriage is/meant is part of why I like the straightforward unconstitutional sex discrimination approach because you don’t have to get into all that.
1: Is the state making a sex/gender based classification? Yes.
2: Does the law survive intermediate/strict scrutiny? No.
End of case.
what Ugh said
what Ugh said
what Ugh said
So if I have a sex change operation, who am I allowed to marry and who decides?
Once you have legally sanctioned reassignment of gender, the “traditional” framework falls apart.
Are you really going to tell someone that he or she can’t marry a person of a particular sex, that is, unless he or she gets a sex-change, because that’s what’s going to make it legal? That’s the call the government is going to make?
So if I have a sex change operation, who am I allowed to marry and who decides?
Once you have legally sanctioned reassignment of gender, the “traditional” framework falls apart.
Are you really going to tell someone that he or she can’t marry a person of a particular sex, that is, unless he or she gets a sex-change, because that’s what’s going to make it legal? That’s the call the government is going to make?
So if I have a sex change operation, who am I allowed to marry and who decides?
Once you have legally sanctioned reassignment of gender, the “traditional” framework falls apart.
Are you really going to tell someone that he or she can’t marry a person of a particular sex, that is, unless he or she gets a sex-change, because that’s what’s going to make it legal? That’s the call the government is going to make?
Let me add that I don’t think the existence of sex-changes is a necessary condition under which the justification of constitutionally protected SSM is possible. But I do think it renders the (reasonable?) arguments against it moot.
Let me add that I don’t think the existence of sex-changes is a necessary condition under which the justification of constitutionally protected SSM is possible. But I do think it renders the (reasonable?) arguments against it moot.
Let me add that I don’t think the existence of sex-changes is a necessary condition under which the justification of constitutionally protected SSM is possible. But I do think it renders the (reasonable?) arguments against it moot.
Not a tradition, that’s what “marriage” MEANT.
Which is debatable, and largely irrelevant. Once the state decides to extend privilege to person(s) through legal means, that privilege needs to be accessible to all persons, or restrictions need to pass strict scrutiny.
Not a tradition, that’s what “marriage” MEANT.
Which is debatable, and largely irrelevant. Once the state decides to extend privilege to person(s) through legal means, that privilege needs to be accessible to all persons, or restrictions need to pass strict scrutiny.
Not a tradition, that’s what “marriage” MEANT.
Which is debatable, and largely irrelevant. Once the state decides to extend privilege to person(s) through legal means, that privilege needs to be accessible to all persons, or restrictions need to pass strict scrutiny.
Spot on, thompson.
If “being married” just meant sending out engraved invites, wearing rings, and the occasional public snogging, who cares?
But when it has tax/healthcare/inheritance/legal implications, then that’s government involvement, and equality is required.
The entire SSM “problem” could be solved by just getting the government OUT of the marriage business. Just do whatever you want, via private contract.
Spot on, thompson.
If “being married” just meant sending out engraved invites, wearing rings, and the occasional public snogging, who cares?
But when it has tax/healthcare/inheritance/legal implications, then that’s government involvement, and equality is required.
The entire SSM “problem” could be solved by just getting the government OUT of the marriage business. Just do whatever you want, via private contract.
Spot on, thompson.
If “being married” just meant sending out engraved invites, wearing rings, and the occasional public snogging, who cares?
But when it has tax/healthcare/inheritance/legal implications, then that’s government involvement, and equality is required.
The entire SSM “problem” could be solved by just getting the government OUT of the marriage business. Just do whatever you want, via private contract.
I’m looking forward to the “traditional marriage” advocates showing us the “Joint, Married” checkbox on millenia-old MXL forms, to prove that governmental preferences for trad-marriage goes back a long, long way.
I’m looking forward to the “traditional marriage” advocates showing us the “Joint, Married” checkbox on millenia-old MXL forms, to prove that governmental preferences for trad-marriage goes back a long, long way.
I’m looking forward to the “traditional marriage” advocates showing us the “Joint, Married” checkbox on millenia-old MXL forms, to prove that governmental preferences for trad-marriage goes back a long, long way.
Or, to put it in the language perferred by libertarians, is marriage (or should it be) a positive or negative right? As it stands, legal marriage is conferred by the state (which, of course, it what makes it legal) and it’s desirable, in part, for a number of purposes because of its legal recognition by the state. So I’d say that makes it, currently, a positive right.
If it were a matter of no one stopping you, but then you’re just two people who need to put a lot more stuff in writing to handle your affairs, it would be a negative right, and it really wouldn’t matter – gay, straight, polygamous, or whatever.
I think that would suck, and it would never happen.
But it does make me wonder what sort of “quasi-marriage” contractual arrangements are possible among groups of people in greater numbers than two – you know, right now.
Or, to put it in the language perferred by libertarians, is marriage (or should it be) a positive or negative right? As it stands, legal marriage is conferred by the state (which, of course, it what makes it legal) and it’s desirable, in part, for a number of purposes because of its legal recognition by the state. So I’d say that makes it, currently, a positive right.
If it were a matter of no one stopping you, but then you’re just two people who need to put a lot more stuff in writing to handle your affairs, it would be a negative right, and it really wouldn’t matter – gay, straight, polygamous, or whatever.
I think that would suck, and it would never happen.
But it does make me wonder what sort of “quasi-marriage” contractual arrangements are possible among groups of people in greater numbers than two – you know, right now.
Or, to put it in the language perferred by libertarians, is marriage (or should it be) a positive or negative right? As it stands, legal marriage is conferred by the state (which, of course, it what makes it legal) and it’s desirable, in part, for a number of purposes because of its legal recognition by the state. So I’d say that makes it, currently, a positive right.
If it were a matter of no one stopping you, but then you’re just two people who need to put a lot more stuff in writing to handle your affairs, it would be a negative right, and it really wouldn’t matter – gay, straight, polygamous, or whatever.
I think that would suck, and it would never happen.
But it does make me wonder what sort of “quasi-marriage” contractual arrangements are possible among groups of people in greater numbers than two – you know, right now.
But it does make me wonder what sort of “quasi-marriage” contractual arrangements are possible among groups of people in greater numbers than two – you know, right now.
Incorporation.
But it does make me wonder what sort of “quasi-marriage” contractual arrangements are possible among groups of people in greater numbers than two – you know, right now.
Incorporation.
But it does make me wonder what sort of “quasi-marriage” contractual arrangements are possible among groups of people in greater numbers than two – you know, right now.
Incorporation.
What Ugh said at 2:56.
If SSM seems weird to you, don’t marry a person of your own gender. Problem solved.
If you’re invited to one and aren’t comfortable, say you have other plans and send a nice card. Or, no card, if it’s that much of an issue. Problem solved.
If the picture-taking and cake-baking thing is a bridge too far, fine, we’ll allow exemptions of conscience.
Beyond that, it just seems like a MYOB thing. To me, anyway.
What’s it to you if *somebody else* does something you don’t approve of?
It’s not going to destroy the family, it’s not going to release the hounds of hell, it’s not going to do anything to anyone.
I probably know a baker’s dozen of married gay couples, of both genders, including at least one where one of the partners is transgender.
They’re plain old ordinary people. OK, mostly. But as ordinary as anybody else. And the fact of them being married causes exactly zero damage to the rest of the world.
My opinion about all of this is based on what I see with my own eyes. I don’t see what the problem is.
Women and children used to be considered the chattel property of men. Now they aren’t.
The overwhelming consensus used to be that white people were naturally superior to everybody else, full stop. Now it isn’t.
Things change.
What Ugh said at 2:56.
If SSM seems weird to you, don’t marry a person of your own gender. Problem solved.
If you’re invited to one and aren’t comfortable, say you have other plans and send a nice card. Or, no card, if it’s that much of an issue. Problem solved.
If the picture-taking and cake-baking thing is a bridge too far, fine, we’ll allow exemptions of conscience.
Beyond that, it just seems like a MYOB thing. To me, anyway.
What’s it to you if *somebody else* does something you don’t approve of?
It’s not going to destroy the family, it’s not going to release the hounds of hell, it’s not going to do anything to anyone.
I probably know a baker’s dozen of married gay couples, of both genders, including at least one where one of the partners is transgender.
They’re plain old ordinary people. OK, mostly. But as ordinary as anybody else. And the fact of them being married causes exactly zero damage to the rest of the world.
My opinion about all of this is based on what I see with my own eyes. I don’t see what the problem is.
Women and children used to be considered the chattel property of men. Now they aren’t.
The overwhelming consensus used to be that white people were naturally superior to everybody else, full stop. Now it isn’t.
Things change.
What Ugh said at 2:56.
If SSM seems weird to you, don’t marry a person of your own gender. Problem solved.
If you’re invited to one and aren’t comfortable, say you have other plans and send a nice card. Or, no card, if it’s that much of an issue. Problem solved.
If the picture-taking and cake-baking thing is a bridge too far, fine, we’ll allow exemptions of conscience.
Beyond that, it just seems like a MYOB thing. To me, anyway.
What’s it to you if *somebody else* does something you don’t approve of?
It’s not going to destroy the family, it’s not going to release the hounds of hell, it’s not going to do anything to anyone.
I probably know a baker’s dozen of married gay couples, of both genders, including at least one where one of the partners is transgender.
They’re plain old ordinary people. OK, mostly. But as ordinary as anybody else. And the fact of them being married causes exactly zero damage to the rest of the world.
My opinion about all of this is based on what I see with my own eyes. I don’t see what the problem is.
Women and children used to be considered the chattel property of men. Now they aren’t.
The overwhelming consensus used to be that white people were naturally superior to everybody else, full stop. Now it isn’t.
Things change.
Incorporation
a marriage could last in perpetuity! it could elect officers, write by-laws and register with the Secretary of State!
Incorporation
a marriage could last in perpetuity! it could elect officers, write by-laws and register with the Secretary of State!
Incorporation
a marriage could last in perpetuity! it could elect officers, write by-laws and register with the Secretary of State!
Incorporation
And wouldn’t it be fun to see what they gave as the purpose of the corporation? Could give a whole new perspective on what marriage is all about. With data!
Incorporation
And wouldn’t it be fun to see what they gave as the purpose of the corporation? Could give a whole new perspective on what marriage is all about. With data!
Incorporation
And wouldn’t it be fun to see what they gave as the purpose of the corporation? Could give a whole new perspective on what marriage is all about. With data!
Meanwhile, in Louisiana:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jindal-ginsburg-kagan-recusal-gay-marriage
Oddly, he doesn’t suggest all the Catholic justices recuse themselves because of the church’s position on gay marriage, or their own public statements.
Meanwhile, in Louisiana:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jindal-ginsburg-kagan-recusal-gay-marriage
Oddly, he doesn’t suggest all the Catholic justices recuse themselves because of the church’s position on gay marriage, or their own public statements.
Meanwhile, in Louisiana:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jindal-ginsburg-kagan-recusal-gay-marriage
Oddly, he doesn’t suggest all the Catholic justices recuse themselves because of the church’s position on gay marriage, or their own public statements.
a marriage could enter into contracts with other marriages. it could even sue another marriage – or a sue foreign government!
could it issue stock? if so, could it embark on hostile takeovers of other marriages?
this would be an exciting new world. i hope it comes to pass.
a marriage could enter into contracts with other marriages. it could even sue another marriage – or a sue foreign government!
could it issue stock? if so, could it embark on hostile takeovers of other marriages?
this would be an exciting new world. i hope it comes to pass.
a marriage could enter into contracts with other marriages. it could even sue another marriage – or a sue foreign government!
could it issue stock? if so, could it embark on hostile takeovers of other marriages?
this would be an exciting new world. i hope it comes to pass.
“could it embark on hostile takeovers of other marriages?”
If this becomes possible, should my wife and I embark on a state-wide campaign to perform as many hostile takeovers of heterosexual marriages as possible and then dissolve the partnership while liquidating the other marriages’ assets? 🙂
For once, Pat Robertson could wag his finger at the camera, tell his viewers he told them so, and he’d be correct. I don’t want to live in a world where Pat Robertson is right… 🙂
“could it embark on hostile takeovers of other marriages?”
If this becomes possible, should my wife and I embark on a state-wide campaign to perform as many hostile takeovers of heterosexual marriages as possible and then dissolve the partnership while liquidating the other marriages’ assets? 🙂
For once, Pat Robertson could wag his finger at the camera, tell his viewers he told them so, and he’d be correct. I don’t want to live in a world where Pat Robertson is right… 🙂
“could it embark on hostile takeovers of other marriages?”
If this becomes possible, should my wife and I embark on a state-wide campaign to perform as many hostile takeovers of heterosexual marriages as possible and then dissolve the partnership while liquidating the other marriages’ assets? 🙂
For once, Pat Robertson could wag his finger at the camera, tell his viewers he told them so, and he’d be correct. I don’t want to live in a world where Pat Robertson is right… 🙂
Well, he sure as hell ain’t left! *rimshot*
Well, he sure as hell ain’t left! *rimshot*
Well, he sure as hell ain’t left! *rimshot*
Except, perhaps, as in left behind as the world changes.
Except, perhaps, as in left behind as the world changes.
Except, perhaps, as in left behind as the world changes.
Given the Roberts Court’s rulings in Hobby Lobby and Citizen’s United, it’s pretty clear that being incorporated is the way to go.
The Annual Meeting/Orgy makes it all worthwhile.
Given the Roberts Court’s rulings in Hobby Lobby and Citizen’s United, it’s pretty clear that being incorporated is the way to go.
The Annual Meeting/Orgy makes it all worthwhile.
Given the Roberts Court’s rulings in Hobby Lobby and Citizen’s United, it’s pretty clear that being incorporated is the way to go.
The Annual Meeting/Orgy makes it all worthwhile.
Interesting….Married, Inc.
Certainly many a marriage was and/or is based on money. Would it have limited liability? Could it deduct all costs as “business expenses”?
What fun.
Interesting….Married, Inc.
Certainly many a marriage was and/or is based on money. Would it have limited liability? Could it deduct all costs as “business expenses”?
What fun.
Interesting….Married, Inc.
Certainly many a marriage was and/or is based on money. Would it have limited liability? Could it deduct all costs as “business expenses”?
What fun.
Judge John Roberts is a squirmin’ in his robe, Judge John Roberts is a squirmin’ in his robe,Judge John Roberts is a squirmin’ in his robe…his truth has now long gone.
Judge John Roberts is a squirmin’ in his robe, Judge John Roberts is a squirmin’ in his robe,Judge John Roberts is a squirmin’ in his robe…his truth has now long gone.
Judge John Roberts is a squirmin’ in his robe, Judge John Roberts is a squirmin’ in his robe,Judge John Roberts is a squirmin’ in his robe…his truth has now long gone.
Wait, let me get this straight…bobbyp’s link seems to indicate Justice Roberts believes that I will somehow be better off not being treated equally, but having to continue to fight for equal treatment?
That’s like saying you shouldn’t bother to eat the food you ordered at the restaurant, because it can’t possibly live up to your impossible expectations, so you’re better off staying hungry. I’ll be interested to see if he starts taking his own dieting advice.
Wait, let me get this straight…bobbyp’s link seems to indicate Justice Roberts believes that I will somehow be better off not being treated equally, but having to continue to fight for equal treatment?
That’s like saying you shouldn’t bother to eat the food you ordered at the restaurant, because it can’t possibly live up to your impossible expectations, so you’re better off staying hungry. I’ll be interested to see if he starts taking his own dieting advice.
Wait, let me get this straight…bobbyp’s link seems to indicate Justice Roberts believes that I will somehow be better off not being treated equally, but having to continue to fight for equal treatment?
That’s like saying you shouldn’t bother to eat the food you ordered at the restaurant, because it can’t possibly live up to your impossible expectations, so you’re better off staying hungry. I’ll be interested to see if he starts taking his own dieting advice.
Ah, tradition! The crotchety old man’s last line of defense.
Aside from being a featured song in Fiddler on the Roof, what is “tradition”? Does it ever change? Was “tradition” ever a newfangled innovation that crotchety old men bitched and moaned about? How ancient does a “tradition” have to be for it to be treated as de facto law? How old does a practice have to get before crotchety old men will accept it as “tradition”?
Have any of you people ever started a new tradition? Have any of you ever abandoned one because it started to seem pointless, silly, or morally bankrupt? Did it hurt much?
–TP
Ah, tradition! The crotchety old man’s last line of defense.
Aside from being a featured song in Fiddler on the Roof, what is “tradition”? Does it ever change? Was “tradition” ever a newfangled innovation that crotchety old men bitched and moaned about? How ancient does a “tradition” have to be for it to be treated as de facto law? How old does a practice have to get before crotchety old men will accept it as “tradition”?
Have any of you people ever started a new tradition? Have any of you ever abandoned one because it started to seem pointless, silly, or morally bankrupt? Did it hurt much?
–TP
Ah, tradition! The crotchety old man’s last line of defense.
Aside from being a featured song in Fiddler on the Roof, what is “tradition”? Does it ever change? Was “tradition” ever a newfangled innovation that crotchety old men bitched and moaned about? How ancient does a “tradition” have to be for it to be treated as de facto law? How old does a practice have to get before crotchety old men will accept it as “tradition”?
Have any of you people ever started a new tradition? Have any of you ever abandoned one because it started to seem pointless, silly, or morally bankrupt? Did it hurt much?
–TP
Took me years, but I finally managed to abandon the traditions of my religious upbringing. Was quite painful at first, but afterwards I felt a whole lot better. 🙂
Took me years, but I finally managed to abandon the traditions of my religious upbringing. Was quite painful at first, but afterwards I felt a whole lot better. 🙂
Took me years, but I finally managed to abandon the traditions of my religious upbringing. Was quite painful at first, but afterwards I felt a whole lot better. 🙂
FWIW, I heard long ago of a newly-founded college where some Dean or President announced: “As of today, this is a tradition of our Dear Old Alma Mater,” or words to that effect.
FWIW, I heard long ago of a newly-founded college where some Dean or President announced: “As of today, this is a tradition of our Dear Old Alma Mater,” or words to that effect.
FWIW, I heard long ago of a newly-founded college where some Dean or President announced: “As of today, this is a tradition of our Dear Old Alma Mater,” or words to that effect.
I only say Gormenghast. Who’s going to be The Secretary?
Including the traditional protest against the traditional violation of the egg colour on the ninth day of the month. “The egg should be blue, not red!”
(for the nitpickers: that’s from the BBC miniseries not the books, where similar details are described but not as a basis for a scene.)
I only say Gormenghast. Who’s going to be The Secretary?
Including the traditional protest against the traditional violation of the egg colour on the ninth day of the month. “The egg should be blue, not red!”
(for the nitpickers: that’s from the BBC miniseries not the books, where similar details are described but not as a basis for a scene.)
I only say Gormenghast. Who’s going to be The Secretary?
Including the traditional protest against the traditional violation of the egg colour on the ninth day of the month. “The egg should be blue, not red!”
(for the nitpickers: that’s from the BBC miniseries not the books, where similar details are described but not as a basis for a scene.)
Tony P, somewhere I heard an Orthodox Jew talk about their people’s “ancient tradition of dressing like 19th century Polish farmers”.
Tony P, somewhere I heard an Orthodox Jew talk about their people’s “ancient tradition of dressing like 19th century Polish farmers”.
Tony P, somewhere I heard an Orthodox Jew talk about their people’s “ancient tradition of dressing like 19th century Polish farmers”.
Wait, let me get this straight…bobbyp’s link seems to indicate Justice Roberts believes that I will somehow be better off not being treated equally, but having to continue to fight for equal treatment?
Judge Roberts thinks it might be better if people would just be quiet and sit down and let everyone’s minds change naturally, in their own due time. because if the Court steps in and changes things now, some people won’t be ready and they will have great and powerful boohoos and sads.
Wait, let me get this straight…bobbyp’s link seems to indicate Justice Roberts believes that I will somehow be better off not being treated equally, but having to continue to fight for equal treatment?
Judge Roberts thinks it might be better if people would just be quiet and sit down and let everyone’s minds change naturally, in their own due time. because if the Court steps in and changes things now, some people won’t be ready and they will have great and powerful boohoos and sads.
Wait, let me get this straight…bobbyp’s link seems to indicate Justice Roberts believes that I will somehow be better off not being treated equally, but having to continue to fight for equal treatment?
Judge Roberts thinks it might be better if people would just be quiet and sit down and let everyone’s minds change naturally, in their own due time. because if the Court steps in and changes things now, some people won’t be ready and they will have great and powerful boohoos and sads.
Bobbyp’s link is rather… weird, especially the comments. I’m unclear, is this a case of all the ‘conservative’ comments being from jokers who use pen names like ‘Hitler’, or is somebody just going through the comments and changing the names wherever they don’t like the point of view expressed? I honestly don’t know, after all, some liberal sites think it’s great fun to change a person’s comment while leaving the name unchanged, why not the reverse?
At any rate, the link leaves me no more informed about what Roberts had to say, than before following it. Not only did the linked post have no actual quotes from Roberts, it only linked to further criticisms of him, not to anything he actually SAID.
That’s generally a bad sign, you know, when the person criticizing something doesn’t link to it, only to other criticisms. It indicates that they’re not especially eager for you to see whether they’re honestly representing what they’re criticizing.
Bobbyp’s link is rather… weird, especially the comments. I’m unclear, is this a case of all the ‘conservative’ comments being from jokers who use pen names like ‘Hitler’, or is somebody just going through the comments and changing the names wherever they don’t like the point of view expressed? I honestly don’t know, after all, some liberal sites think it’s great fun to change a person’s comment while leaving the name unchanged, why not the reverse?
At any rate, the link leaves me no more informed about what Roberts had to say, than before following it. Not only did the linked post have no actual quotes from Roberts, it only linked to further criticisms of him, not to anything he actually SAID.
That’s generally a bad sign, you know, when the person criticizing something doesn’t link to it, only to other criticisms. It indicates that they’re not especially eager for you to see whether they’re honestly representing what they’re criticizing.
Bobbyp’s link is rather… weird, especially the comments. I’m unclear, is this a case of all the ‘conservative’ comments being from jokers who use pen names like ‘Hitler’, or is somebody just going through the comments and changing the names wherever they don’t like the point of view expressed? I honestly don’t know, after all, some liberal sites think it’s great fun to change a person’s comment while leaving the name unchanged, why not the reverse?
At any rate, the link leaves me no more informed about what Roberts had to say, than before following it. Not only did the linked post have no actual quotes from Roberts, it only linked to further criticisms of him, not to anything he actually SAID.
That’s generally a bad sign, you know, when the person criticizing something doesn’t link to it, only to other criticisms. It indicates that they’re not especially eager for you to see whether they’re honestly representing what they’re criticizing.
Not only did the linked post have no actual quotes from Roberts, it only linked to further criticisms of him, not to anything he actually SAID.
It did, in fact, have a direct quote from Roberts. Overall, the link left a lot to be desired in terms of depth. Roberts asked a lot of different questions that are suggestive of different views. For example, what Ugh referenced above:
Counsel, I’m I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case. I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?
Not only did the linked post have no actual quotes from Roberts, it only linked to further criticisms of him, not to anything he actually SAID.
It did, in fact, have a direct quote from Roberts. Overall, the link left a lot to be desired in terms of depth. Roberts asked a lot of different questions that are suggestive of different views. For example, what Ugh referenced above:
Counsel, I’m I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case. I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?
Not only did the linked post have no actual quotes from Roberts, it only linked to further criticisms of him, not to anything he actually SAID.
It did, in fact, have a direct quote from Roberts. Overall, the link left a lot to be desired in terms of depth. Roberts asked a lot of different questions that are suggestive of different views. For example, what Ugh referenced above:
Counsel, I’m I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case. I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?
From the Lemieux article: “Closing the debate can close minds, and it will have a consequence on how this new institution is accepted,” asserted the chief justice.
What ARE those funny marks?
From the Lemieux article: “Closing the debate can close minds, and it will have a consequence on how this new institution is accepted,” asserted the chief justice.
What ARE those funny marks?
From the Lemieux article: “Closing the debate can close minds, and it will have a consequence on how this new institution is accepted,” asserted the chief justice.
What ARE those funny marks?
Fair enough, there were one or two sentences quoted, without context. Until I can get at the source, I’ll even assume they weren’t out of context. I withdraw that particular complaint, though a link to where the quote came from would have been appropriate.
Fair enough, there were one or two sentences quoted, without context. Until I can get at the source, I’ll even assume they weren’t out of context. I withdraw that particular complaint, though a link to where the quote came from would have been appropriate.
Fair enough, there were one or two sentences quoted, without context. Until I can get at the source, I’ll even assume they weren’t out of context. I withdraw that particular complaint, though a link to where the quote came from would have been appropriate.
Brett:
I linked transcripts above. It’s in the 1st half of argument, in a back and forth with counsel for the petitioners (Bonauto).
Brett:
I linked transcripts above. It’s in the 1st half of argument, in a back and forth with counsel for the petitioners (Bonauto).
Brett:
I linked transcripts above. It’s in the 1st half of argument, in a back and forth with counsel for the petitioners (Bonauto).
transcript 1: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_11o2.pdf
transcript 2: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q2_f2ah.pdf
the quote in question appears in T #1, page 21-22
it’s a PITA to copy quotes for that stuff, so you’ll have to look for yourself if you want more.
transcript 1: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_11o2.pdf
transcript 2: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q2_f2ah.pdf
the quote in question appears in T #1, page 21-22
it’s a PITA to copy quotes for that stuff, so you’ll have to look for yourself if you want more.
transcript 1: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_11o2.pdf
transcript 2: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q2_f2ah.pdf
the quote in question appears in T #1, page 21-22
it’s a PITA to copy quotes for that stuff, so you’ll have to look for yourself if you want more.
I apologize for shifting gears here, but since it’s an open thread and we had a lively discussion on recent events in Baltimore, largely involving race, this might be a good read about now.
It looks spot on to me, accutately describing what I’ve experienced in talking to people, regardless of “which side” of the discussion I’ve been on.
I apologize for shifting gears here, but since it’s an open thread and we had a lively discussion on recent events in Baltimore, largely involving race, this might be a good read about now.
It looks spot on to me, accutately describing what I’ve experienced in talking to people, regardless of “which side” of the discussion I’ve been on.
I apologize for shifting gears here, but since it’s an open thread and we had a lively discussion on recent events in Baltimore, largely involving race, this might be a good read about now.
It looks spot on to me, accutately describing what I’ve experienced in talking to people, regardless of “which side” of the discussion I’ve been on.
That was a good read, HSH. Thanks.
That was a good read, HSH. Thanks.
That was a good read, HSH. Thanks.
Lemieux is very good, but he’s probably overstating Roberts’ thinking on this. I seriously doubt he’ll right or join an opinion that would uphold the same-sex marriage bans because “let’s let the people decide!”
It reads more like “what do you think of this?” But I haven’t reviewed the whole transcript.
Lemieux is very good, but he’s probably overstating Roberts’ thinking on this. I seriously doubt he’ll right or join an opinion that would uphold the same-sex marriage bans because “let’s let the people decide!”
It reads more like “what do you think of this?” But I haven’t reviewed the whole transcript.
Lemieux is very good, but he’s probably overstating Roberts’ thinking on this. I seriously doubt he’ll right or join an opinion that would uphold the same-sex marriage bans because “let’s let the people decide!”
It reads more like “what do you think of this?” But I haven’t reviewed the whole transcript.
It reads more like “what do you think of this?” But I haven’t reviewed the whole transcript.
That was my take as well, but I’m not inside his head.
It reads more like “what do you think of this?” But I haven’t reviewed the whole transcript.
That was my take as well, but I’m not inside his head.
It reads more like “what do you think of this?” But I haven’t reviewed the whole transcript.
That was my take as well, but I’m not inside his head.
Lemieux is very good, but he’s probably overstating Roberts’ thinking on this
My take is Lemieux is simply stating his astonishment at the author of Shelby County uttering this errant nonsense, nonsense that is totally at odds with the Shelby ruling, i.e., a bad case of WTF are you talking about?
On rioting: More here.
Lemieux is very good, but he’s probably overstating Roberts’ thinking on this
My take is Lemieux is simply stating his astonishment at the author of Shelby County uttering this errant nonsense, nonsense that is totally at odds with the Shelby ruling, i.e., a bad case of WTF are you talking about?
On rioting: More here.
Lemieux is very good, but he’s probably overstating Roberts’ thinking on this
My take is Lemieux is simply stating his astonishment at the author of Shelby County uttering this errant nonsense, nonsense that is totally at odds with the Shelby ruling, i.e., a bad case of WTF are you talking about?
On rioting: More here.
Green’s arrest has been found to be illegal, and six officers have been charged.
Charges range from assault to 2nd degree murder.
Green’s arrest has been found to be illegal, and six officers have been charged.
Charges range from assault to 2nd degree murder.
Green’s arrest has been found to be illegal, and six officers have been charged.
Charges range from assault to 2nd degree murder.
Assuming it’s not just a case of throwing some scapegoats to the mob, that would be a very refreshing case of police accountability. I’m guessing we’ll be getting enough details in the coming months to figure out which it is.
Assuming it’s not just a case of throwing some scapegoats to the mob, that would be a very refreshing case of police accountability. I’m guessing we’ll be getting enough details in the coming months to figure out which it is.
Assuming it’s not just a case of throwing some scapegoats to the mob, that would be a very refreshing case of police accountability. I’m guessing we’ll be getting enough details in the coming months to figure out which it is.
Quoting Turbulence (emphasis mine):
He may turn out to be wrong about that very last part, but the bolded part seems to be at the heart of the matter.
Quoting Turbulence (emphasis mine):
He may turn out to be wrong about that very last part, but the bolded part seems to be at the heart of the matter.
Quoting Turbulence (emphasis mine):
He may turn out to be wrong about that very last part, but the bolded part seems to be at the heart of the matter.
In Baltimore, they call it a “rough ride.” In Philadelphia, they had another name for it that hints at the age of the practice — a “nickel ride,” a reference to old-time amusement park rides that cost five cents. Other cities called them joy rides.
The slang terms mask a dark tradition of police misconduct in which suspects, seated or lying face down and in handcuffs in the back of a police wagon, are jolted and battered by an intentionally rough and bumpy ride that can do as much damage as a police baton without an officer having to administer a blow.
[…]
Freddie Gray’s Injury and the Police ‘Rough Ride’
In Baltimore, they call it a “rough ride.” In Philadelphia, they had another name for it that hints at the age of the practice — a “nickel ride,” a reference to old-time amusement park rides that cost five cents. Other cities called them joy rides.
The slang terms mask a dark tradition of police misconduct in which suspects, seated or lying face down and in handcuffs in the back of a police wagon, are jolted and battered by an intentionally rough and bumpy ride that can do as much damage as a police baton without an officer having to administer a blow.
[…]
Freddie Gray’s Injury and the Police ‘Rough Ride’
In Baltimore, they call it a “rough ride.” In Philadelphia, they had another name for it that hints at the age of the practice — a “nickel ride,” a reference to old-time amusement park rides that cost five cents. Other cities called them joy rides.
The slang terms mask a dark tradition of police misconduct in which suspects, seated or lying face down and in handcuffs in the back of a police wagon, are jolted and battered by an intentionally rough and bumpy ride that can do as much damage as a police baton without an officer having to administer a blow.
[…]
Freddie Gray’s Injury and the Police ‘Rough Ride’
At this point I’d just remind you how many people were convinced that Darryl Wilson was a murderer. I’ll wait on the evidence.
But what I have heard certainly doesn’t sound good.
At this point I’d just remind you how many people were convinced that Darryl Wilson was a murderer. I’ll wait on the evidence.
But what I have heard certainly doesn’t sound good.
At this point I’d just remind you how many people were convinced that Darryl Wilson was a murderer. I’ll wait on the evidence.
But what I have heard certainly doesn’t sound good.
Set aside, for a moment, the facts of what happened in the Baltimore police van. The situation has to be made worse by the fact that the “switchblade” which occasioned the arrest in the first place was, in the opinion of the District Attorney, not a switchblade at all but a perfectly legal knife.
So start with a false arrest. From there, anything at all which happens to the arrestee is only going to be magnified.
Set aside, for a moment, the facts of what happened in the Baltimore police van. The situation has to be made worse by the fact that the “switchblade” which occasioned the arrest in the first place was, in the opinion of the District Attorney, not a switchblade at all but a perfectly legal knife.
So start with a false arrest. From there, anything at all which happens to the arrestee is only going to be magnified.
Set aside, for a moment, the facts of what happened in the Baltimore police van. The situation has to be made worse by the fact that the “switchblade” which occasioned the arrest in the first place was, in the opinion of the District Attorney, not a switchblade at all but a perfectly legal knife.
So start with a false arrest. From there, anything at all which happens to the arrestee is only going to be magnified.
I’m sure that once all the facts come out Mr. Gray will have done something “wrong” enough, even illegal, which will be enough for more than half the country to basically wash their hands of the case and conclude he “deserved it” or “shouldn’t have been doing that and now look what happened.”
Heck, simply seeing cops and running is probably enough – he must have done something wrong and what did he expect?
I’m sure that once all the facts come out Mr. Gray will have done something “wrong” enough, even illegal, which will be enough for more than half the country to basically wash their hands of the case and conclude he “deserved it” or “shouldn’t have been doing that and now look what happened.”
Heck, simply seeing cops and running is probably enough – he must have done something wrong and what did he expect?
I’m sure that once all the facts come out Mr. Gray will have done something “wrong” enough, even illegal, which will be enough for more than half the country to basically wash their hands of the case and conclude he “deserved it” or “shouldn’t have been doing that and now look what happened.”
Heck, simply seeing cops and running is probably enough – he must have done something wrong and what did he expect?
In Philadelphia, they had another name for it that hints at the age of the practice — a “nickel ride,” a reference to old-time amusement park rides that cost five cents.
I may or may not have experienced one of these in 1993 while being transported from South Street to the 17th District. I’m not saying either way.
In Philadelphia, they had another name for it that hints at the age of the practice — a “nickel ride,” a reference to old-time amusement park rides that cost five cents.
I may or may not have experienced one of these in 1993 while being transported from South Street to the 17th District. I’m not saying either way.
In Philadelphia, they had another name for it that hints at the age of the practice — a “nickel ride,” a reference to old-time amusement park rides that cost five cents.
I may or may not have experienced one of these in 1993 while being transported from South Street to the 17th District. I’m not saying either way.
I’m not at all certain about that, Ugh. False arrest means they lose their immunity, and not belting in a man they’d trussed up like that makes his death as a result negligent homicide at the least.
While it’s not impossible that something will come out clearing them, like his having an eggshell skull, Wilson looked a LOT more innocent at this point than they do.
I’m not at all certain about that, Ugh. False arrest means they lose their immunity, and not belting in a man they’d trussed up like that makes his death as a result negligent homicide at the least.
While it’s not impossible that something will come out clearing them, like his having an eggshell skull, Wilson looked a LOT more innocent at this point than they do.
I’m not at all certain about that, Ugh. False arrest means they lose their immunity, and not belting in a man they’d trussed up like that makes his death as a result negligent homicide at the least.
While it’s not impossible that something will come out clearing them, like his having an eggshell skull, Wilson looked a LOT more innocent at this point than they do.
Guns!
A member of Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell’s security team left a handgun and ammunition clip stuffed in a toilet-seat-cover dispenser in a U.S. Capitol bathroom on Jan. 29, Roll Call reports—and that’s only the second-most disturbing incident involving a loose gun and a Republican leader this calendar year:
Guns!
A member of Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell’s security team left a handgun and ammunition clip stuffed in a toilet-seat-cover dispenser in a U.S. Capitol bathroom on Jan. 29, Roll Call reports—and that’s only the second-most disturbing incident involving a loose gun and a Republican leader this calendar year:
Guns!
A member of Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell’s security team left a handgun and ammunition clip stuffed in a toilet-seat-cover dispenser in a U.S. Capitol bathroom on Jan. 29, Roll Call reports—and that’s only the second-most disturbing incident involving a loose gun and a Republican leader this calendar year:
Heck, simply seeing cops and running is probably enough – he must have done something wrong and what did he expect?
Why not? That’s a sentiment I’ve seen stated about Walter Scott. You know, because you’d have to be an idiot to think you won’t be shot eight times in the back by someone whose job is public safety.
See, it’s not so much the shooting as it is the running. That’s the real problem.
Heck, simply seeing cops and running is probably enough – he must have done something wrong and what did he expect?
Why not? That’s a sentiment I’ve seen stated about Walter Scott. You know, because you’d have to be an idiot to think you won’t be shot eight times in the back by someone whose job is public safety.
See, it’s not so much the shooting as it is the running. That’s the real problem.
Heck, simply seeing cops and running is probably enough – he must have done something wrong and what did he expect?
Why not? That’s a sentiment I’ve seen stated about Walter Scott. You know, because you’d have to be an idiot to think you won’t be shot eight times in the back by someone whose job is public safety.
See, it’s not so much the shooting as it is the running. That’s the real problem.
Brett – I don’t disagree. I’m just saying that, IMHO, this country is ready to dismiss any complaints of police brutality/wrongdoing if the person complaining has done anything “wrong.” Even if what was done “wrong” was nothing illegal or even immoral – like running when you see a cop.
That is, it’s more of a the victim “got what he deserved” moral-type judgment than a legal standard. Even him having an eggshell skull shouldn’t clear them, I would think.
Brett – I don’t disagree. I’m just saying that, IMHO, this country is ready to dismiss any complaints of police brutality/wrongdoing if the person complaining has done anything “wrong.” Even if what was done “wrong” was nothing illegal or even immoral – like running when you see a cop.
That is, it’s more of a the victim “got what he deserved” moral-type judgment than a legal standard. Even him having an eggshell skull shouldn’t clear them, I would think.
Brett – I don’t disagree. I’m just saying that, IMHO, this country is ready to dismiss any complaints of police brutality/wrongdoing if the person complaining has done anything “wrong.” Even if what was done “wrong” was nothing illegal or even immoral – like running when you see a cop.
That is, it’s more of a the victim “got what he deserved” moral-type judgment than a legal standard. Even him having an eggshell skull shouldn’t clear them, I would think.
Ugh, I’ll match and raise with all the Democrats getting sucked into the Jeffrey Epstein sex slave scandal. That’s just a bit more disturbing, if you ask me.
The US, UK, what is it with politicians and pedophile rape rings? Is pedophilia genetically linked to sociopathy, or something?
Ugh, I’ll match and raise with all the Democrats getting sucked into the Jeffrey Epstein sex slave scandal. That’s just a bit more disturbing, if you ask me.
The US, UK, what is it with politicians and pedophile rape rings? Is pedophilia genetically linked to sociopathy, or something?
Ugh, I’ll match and raise with all the Democrats getting sucked into the Jeffrey Epstein sex slave scandal. That’s just a bit more disturbing, if you ask me.
The US, UK, what is it with politicians and pedophile rape rings? Is pedophilia genetically linked to sociopathy, or something?
That was more of a shot at widespread gun possession than a political thing – if the damn Capitol Police can’t help but leave guns laying around the freaking Capitol (where kids can find them, no less), why should I trust the general public to be responsible?
That was more of a shot at widespread gun possession than a political thing – if the damn Capitol Police can’t help but leave guns laying around the freaking Capitol (where kids can find them, no less), why should I trust the general public to be responsible?
That was more of a shot at widespread gun possession than a political thing – if the damn Capitol Police can’t help but leave guns laying around the freaking Capitol (where kids can find them, no less), why should I trust the general public to be responsible?
non sequitur, thy name is brett bellmore.
non sequitur, thy name is brett bellmore.
non sequitur, thy name is brett bellmore.
If you can’t trust the police not to truss somebody up and drive over bumps until they’re concussed to death, why should you trust the general public with vans?
If you can’t trust the police not to truss somebody up and drive over bumps until they’re concussed to death, why should you trust the general public with vans?
If you can’t trust the police not to truss somebody up and drive over bumps until they’re concussed to death, why should you trust the general public with vans?
and I know it’s a civil liberty and everything, but can we at least consider revoking concealed carry privileges for people who leave firearms in the john?
even as, like, a thought experiment?
you can still have a gun at home, OK? you can hunt, and go to target practice.
just no more concealed carry. or open carry, for that matter.
because YOU LEFT YOUR FREAKING GUN IN THE TOILET. where, like, any random 8 year old could get their hands on it.
note that the toilet is not mentioned in the text of the 2nd Amendment.
and yes, I suppose I own this threadjack. apologies to one and all.
and I know it’s a civil liberty and everything, but can we at least consider revoking concealed carry privileges for people who leave firearms in the john?
even as, like, a thought experiment?
you can still have a gun at home, OK? you can hunt, and go to target practice.
just no more concealed carry. or open carry, for that matter.
because YOU LEFT YOUR FREAKING GUN IN THE TOILET. where, like, any random 8 year old could get their hands on it.
note that the toilet is not mentioned in the text of the 2nd Amendment.
and yes, I suppose I own this threadjack. apologies to one and all.
and I know it’s a civil liberty and everything, but can we at least consider revoking concealed carry privileges for people who leave firearms in the john?
even as, like, a thought experiment?
you can still have a gun at home, OK? you can hunt, and go to target practice.
just no more concealed carry. or open carry, for that matter.
because YOU LEFT YOUR FREAKING GUN IN THE TOILET. where, like, any random 8 year old could get their hands on it.
note that the toilet is not mentioned in the text of the 2nd Amendment.
and yes, I suppose I own this threadjack. apologies to one and all.
butt mah freedumb!
butt mah freedumb!
butt mah freedumb!
If you can’t trust the police not to truss somebody up and drive over bumps until they’re concussed to death, why should you trust the general public with vans?
You need a license to drive a van, it must be registered with the state and display its tags publicly at all times – all so its ownership and use can be tracked and traced.
If you can’t trust the police not to truss somebody up and drive over bumps until they’re concussed to death, why should you trust the general public with vans?
You need a license to drive a van, it must be registered with the state and display its tags publicly at all times – all so its ownership and use can be tracked and traced.
If you can’t trust the police not to truss somebody up and drive over bumps until they’re concussed to death, why should you trust the general public with vans?
You need a license to drive a van, it must be registered with the state and display its tags publicly at all times – all so its ownership and use can be tracked and traced.
Van’s are also less likely to be misused by a random eight year old going about his or her normal day.
Van’s are also less likely to be misused by a random eight year old going about his or her normal day.
Van’s are also less likely to be misused by a random eight year old going about his or her normal day.
and nobody leaves a van in the toilet.
and nobody leaves a van in the toilet.
and nobody leaves a van in the toilet.
“The US, UK, what is it with politicians priests and pedophile rape rings?”
And Belgium. Others, too, no doubt; they just haven’t been uncovered yet.
“what is it with” ? Power. Narcissistic personality disorder. Self-righteousness. A sense of being immune from accountability.
“The US, UK, what is it with politicians priests and pedophile rape rings?”
And Belgium. Others, too, no doubt; they just haven’t been uncovered yet.
“what is it with” ? Power. Narcissistic personality disorder. Self-righteousness. A sense of being immune from accountability.
“The US, UK, what is it with politicians priests and pedophile rape rings?”
And Belgium. Others, too, no doubt; they just haven’t been uncovered yet.
“what is it with” ? Power. Narcissistic personality disorder. Self-righteousness. A sense of being immune from accountability.
What the hell are you talking about Brett? Between the sex scandal and the van logic, I feel like I’ve been concussed.
What the hell are you talking about Brett? Between the sex scandal and the van logic, I feel like I’ve been concussed.
What the hell are you talking about Brett? Between the sex scandal and the van logic, I feel like I’ve been concussed.
And less likely to be misplaced.
And less likely to be misplaced.
And less likely to be misplaced.
and nobody leaves a van in the toilet.
someone has probably used a van for a toilet, tho.
and nobody leaves a van in the toilet.
someone has probably used a van for a toilet, tho.
and nobody leaves a van in the toilet.
someone has probably used a van for a toilet, tho.
Stop the madness!
Stop the madness!
Stop the madness!
What the hell is Brett talking about?
Something other than SSM and Freddy Gray. Those discussions haven’t turned out so well for the Brett side of the arguments.
What the hell is Brett talking about?
Something other than SSM and Freddy Gray. Those discussions haven’t turned out so well for the Brett side of the arguments.
What the hell is Brett talking about?
Something other than SSM and Freddy Gray. Those discussions haven’t turned out so well for the Brett side of the arguments.
Now, russell, you know that’s not really true. I’ve heard of cases of people leaving their vans in the toilet. Usually makes a real mess of the wall, though.
“and I know it’s a civil liberty and everything, but can we at least consider revoking concealed carry privileges for people who leave firearms in the john?”
Sure. Just to point out, though, this was a cop.
Now, russell, you know that’s not really true. I’ve heard of cases of people leaving their vans in the toilet. Usually makes a real mess of the wall, though.
“and I know it’s a civil liberty and everything, but can we at least consider revoking concealed carry privileges for people who leave firearms in the john?”
Sure. Just to point out, though, this was a cop.
Now, russell, you know that’s not really true. I’ve heard of cases of people leaving their vans in the toilet. Usually makes a real mess of the wall, though.
“and I know it’s a civil liberty and everything, but can we at least consider revoking concealed carry privileges for people who leave firearms in the john?”
Sure. Just to point out, though, this was a cop.
Having seen plenty of van drivers on the road, a total ban would not be unwelcome.
Having seen plenty of van drivers on the road, a total ban would not be unwelcome.
Having seen plenty of van drivers on the road, a total ban would not be unwelcome.
Just to point out, though, this was a cop.
Time for a desk job.
Just to point out, though, this was a cop.
Time for a desk job.
Just to point out, though, this was a cop.
Time for a desk job.
I’m thinking that, even if it’s a cop who left his weapon lying around, his permission to carry should be revoked. If that leaves him unemployed, well such is life. (Maybe he could be on “modified assignment” for the future?)
I’m thinking that, even if it’s a cop who left his weapon lying around, his permission to carry should be revoked. If that leaves him unemployed, well such is life. (Maybe he could be on “modified assignment” for the future?)
I’m thinking that, even if it’s a cop who left his weapon lying around, his permission to carry should be revoked. If that leaves him unemployed, well such is life. (Maybe he could be on “modified assignment” for the future?)
some has probably used a van as a toilet, tho.
some has probably used a van as a toilet, tho.
some has probably used a van as a toilet, tho.
oh great, now i’m all spam blocked.
oh great, now i’m all spam blocked.
oh great, now i’m all spam blocked.
One of them received a 6 day suspension without pay.
One of them received a 6 day suspension without pay.
One of them received a 6 day suspension without pay.
Six days without pay. Is that the current sentencing guideline for “reckless endangerment” in DC?
Six days without pay. Is that the current sentencing guideline for “reckless endangerment” in DC?
Six days without pay. Is that the current sentencing guideline for “reckless endangerment” in DC?
A guy delivered some letters by airmail to Boehner and crew and he’s facing Homeland Security charges.
But weapons left willy-nilly inside the Capitol and its bathrooms — no problem. Hasn’t anyone seen Sterling Hayden get blown away by Michael Corleone with the gun the latter stowed away in the john?
Maybe the postman should have rung twice and delivered handguns to each Congressman.
If you leave a turd out in the open at a gun show, some humorless guys with ample bellies sheathed in tight black NRA t-shirts would open fire on you, I’d expect.
The country is full of guns and full of sh+t, so I don’t see why the differential in punishment for mislaying either.
A guy delivered some letters by airmail to Boehner and crew and he’s facing Homeland Security charges.
But weapons left willy-nilly inside the Capitol and its bathrooms — no problem. Hasn’t anyone seen Sterling Hayden get blown away by Michael Corleone with the gun the latter stowed away in the john?
Maybe the postman should have rung twice and delivered handguns to each Congressman.
If you leave a turd out in the open at a gun show, some humorless guys with ample bellies sheathed in tight black NRA t-shirts would open fire on you, I’d expect.
The country is full of guns and full of sh+t, so I don’t see why the differential in punishment for mislaying either.
A guy delivered some letters by airmail to Boehner and crew and he’s facing Homeland Security charges.
But weapons left willy-nilly inside the Capitol and its bathrooms — no problem. Hasn’t anyone seen Sterling Hayden get blown away by Michael Corleone with the gun the latter stowed away in the john?
Maybe the postman should have rung twice and delivered handguns to each Congressman.
If you leave a turd out in the open at a gun show, some humorless guys with ample bellies sheathed in tight black NRA t-shirts would open fire on you, I’d expect.
The country is full of guns and full of sh+t, so I don’t see why the differential in punishment for mislaying either.
You folks may have this missed this important news, just breaking, but our Naval 7th Fleet has been spotted steaming across the hill country of central Texas toward Austin … this just in now … a Nimitz class aircraft carrier just weighed anchor up against the Capitol Building in Austin after laying waste to a fleet of food truck vendors sent out to harass our men in uniform with lashings of barbecued brisket.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/libertarians-actually-take-this-guy.html
The current Governor of Texas is holed up with his deputies in an abandoned storefront Alamo rental car agency and former Governor Rick Perry is said to have donned the backwards baseball cap of freedom loving commandos everywhere and has halted his nascent Presidential campaign to rush back to his homeland to address his people, whose names escape him.
The scuttlebutt is that out worst fears have come true and the federal government has sent its troops into flyover territory to force Texans to not only accept gay marriage, but according to Rand Paul, who is looking into this whole thing from a safe distance, to also have all heterosexual marriages in the state annulled, a move Rick Perry’s girlfriend just endorsed on live TV.
Apparently, the uninsured in Texas, which number @25% of the non-Comanche population, will be tended to by U.S. Armed Forces medical teams as Barack Obama gears up to mandate Obamacare for all in that State.
Sometimes it takes an army to force a village to act like f*cking human beings.
You folks may have this missed this important news, just breaking, but our Naval 7th Fleet has been spotted steaming across the hill country of central Texas toward Austin … this just in now … a Nimitz class aircraft carrier just weighed anchor up against the Capitol Building in Austin after laying waste to a fleet of food truck vendors sent out to harass our men in uniform with lashings of barbecued brisket.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/libertarians-actually-take-this-guy.html
The current Governor of Texas is holed up with his deputies in an abandoned storefront Alamo rental car agency and former Governor Rick Perry is said to have donned the backwards baseball cap of freedom loving commandos everywhere and has halted his nascent Presidential campaign to rush back to his homeland to address his people, whose names escape him.
The scuttlebutt is that out worst fears have come true and the federal government has sent its troops into flyover territory to force Texans to not only accept gay marriage, but according to Rand Paul, who is looking into this whole thing from a safe distance, to also have all heterosexual marriages in the state annulled, a move Rick Perry’s girlfriend just endorsed on live TV.
Apparently, the uninsured in Texas, which number @25% of the non-Comanche population, will be tended to by U.S. Armed Forces medical teams as Barack Obama gears up to mandate Obamacare for all in that State.
Sometimes it takes an army to force a village to act like f*cking human beings.
You folks may have this missed this important news, just breaking, but our Naval 7th Fleet has been spotted steaming across the hill country of central Texas toward Austin … this just in now … a Nimitz class aircraft carrier just weighed anchor up against the Capitol Building in Austin after laying waste to a fleet of food truck vendors sent out to harass our men in uniform with lashings of barbecued brisket.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/libertarians-actually-take-this-guy.html
The current Governor of Texas is holed up with his deputies in an abandoned storefront Alamo rental car agency and former Governor Rick Perry is said to have donned the backwards baseball cap of freedom loving commandos everywhere and has halted his nascent Presidential campaign to rush back to his homeland to address his people, whose names escape him.
The scuttlebutt is that out worst fears have come true and the federal government has sent its troops into flyover territory to force Texans to not only accept gay marriage, but according to Rand Paul, who is looking into this whole thing from a safe distance, to also have all heterosexual marriages in the state annulled, a move Rick Perry’s girlfriend just endorsed on live TV.
Apparently, the uninsured in Texas, which number @25% of the non-Comanche population, will be tended to by U.S. Armed Forces medical teams as Barack Obama gears up to mandate Obamacare for all in that State.
Sometimes it takes an army to force a village to act like f*cking human beings.
Count,
if the savage inhabitants of Outer DumbF*ckistan can be brought to civilization, no matter the cost in (their) lives, then perhaps we should allow them to join the USA.
In another 50, 100 years or so. If they behave.
Count,
if the savage inhabitants of Outer DumbF*ckistan can be brought to civilization, no matter the cost in (their) lives, then perhaps we should allow them to join the USA.
In another 50, 100 years or so. If they behave.
Count,
if the savage inhabitants of Outer DumbF*ckistan can be brought to civilization, no matter the cost in (their) lives, then perhaps we should allow them to join the USA.
In another 50, 100 years or so. If they behave.
Ensign Pulver here .. the Skipper has just informed me by bellowing at the top of his lungs down the ship’s intercom that we have dropped anchor, I repeat, DROPPED anchor in Austin.
We WEIGHED anchor out of Okinawa and it came in at about 32 tons. I know because I pulled it up by hand, not knowing where the anchor toggle switch is located on this tin can.
Standby for further annoyances.
The chow is pretty good down here, Mom.
The girls I’ve met are pretty and all of them beg me to take them back to the U.S. for a sham marriage, which I guess means no pizza or wedding cake for the likes of me.
When hostilities settle down, I might visit McKinney Texas to trade smirks.
Ensign Pulver here .. the Skipper has just informed me by bellowing at the top of his lungs down the ship’s intercom that we have dropped anchor, I repeat, DROPPED anchor in Austin.
We WEIGHED anchor out of Okinawa and it came in at about 32 tons. I know because I pulled it up by hand, not knowing where the anchor toggle switch is located on this tin can.
Standby for further annoyances.
The chow is pretty good down here, Mom.
The girls I’ve met are pretty and all of them beg me to take them back to the U.S. for a sham marriage, which I guess means no pizza or wedding cake for the likes of me.
When hostilities settle down, I might visit McKinney Texas to trade smirks.
Ensign Pulver here .. the Skipper has just informed me by bellowing at the top of his lungs down the ship’s intercom that we have dropped anchor, I repeat, DROPPED anchor in Austin.
We WEIGHED anchor out of Okinawa and it came in at about 32 tons. I know because I pulled it up by hand, not knowing where the anchor toggle switch is located on this tin can.
Standby for further annoyances.
The chow is pretty good down here, Mom.
The girls I’ve met are pretty and all of them beg me to take them back to the U.S. for a sham marriage, which I guess means no pizza or wedding cake for the likes of me.
When hostilities settle down, I might visit McKinney Texas to trade smirks.
Dear Mom:
I can’t say much about our mission down here south of the border in Texas, but just wanted you to know I’m OK and eating well.
Uncle Sam sure can put on a spread.
After we secured the immediate area around the State Capital, the boys and I ventured into town to mingle with the natives and well, we get a little rambunctious after being at sea for so long.
Let’s just say these Texas girls sure can throw a mean lariat and pull you up on stage when you least expect it. Woo-eee Howdy!
During the day, we filled the rail cars with prisoners for their trip “home” and I helped pump about two million gallons of prime Texas barbecue sauce into our ships auxiliary storage tanks so we can withstand a long occupation, should it come to that, which scuttlebutt says it might.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/jade-helm-wild-conspiracy-theories
Sure, some of the natives take potshots at our fly boys in their F-15s, but by and large they are friendly and welcoming and once you get them used to the frisking and the goosing at the checkpoints, they settle down.
A couple of the guys tried to smuggle a live steer into ship’s quarters, but the Captain put a stop to that when he noticed all the basting brushes were missing from the ship’s mess.
Military command is pretty tight-lipped about what we’re trying to accomplish down here, but I’m sure AM radio is keeping you informed.
It’s great to live in a country where any dang fool thing can come into your head and before you know, out it comes from your mouth into the nearest microphone and into the ears of the informed electorate.
The great thing about the United States is everyone is allowed to be as full of sh*t as they want and proud of it. Not like them Russkies where only Putin can make a lot of crap up and say it and that’s it.
Say Hi to Dad and sis.
I sure miss Cheboygan.
Dear Mom:
I can’t say much about our mission down here south of the border in Texas, but just wanted you to know I’m OK and eating well.
Uncle Sam sure can put on a spread.
After we secured the immediate area around the State Capital, the boys and I ventured into town to mingle with the natives and well, we get a little rambunctious after being at sea for so long.
Let’s just say these Texas girls sure can throw a mean lariat and pull you up on stage when you least expect it. Woo-eee Howdy!
During the day, we filled the rail cars with prisoners for their trip “home” and I helped pump about two million gallons of prime Texas barbecue sauce into our ships auxiliary storage tanks so we can withstand a long occupation, should it come to that, which scuttlebutt says it might.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/jade-helm-wild-conspiracy-theories
Sure, some of the natives take potshots at our fly boys in their F-15s, but by and large they are friendly and welcoming and once you get them used to the frisking and the goosing at the checkpoints, they settle down.
A couple of the guys tried to smuggle a live steer into ship’s quarters, but the Captain put a stop to that when he noticed all the basting brushes were missing from the ship’s mess.
Military command is pretty tight-lipped about what we’re trying to accomplish down here, but I’m sure AM radio is keeping you informed.
It’s great to live in a country where any dang fool thing can come into your head and before you know, out it comes from your mouth into the nearest microphone and into the ears of the informed electorate.
The great thing about the United States is everyone is allowed to be as full of sh*t as they want and proud of it. Not like them Russkies where only Putin can make a lot of crap up and say it and that’s it.
Say Hi to Dad and sis.
I sure miss Cheboygan.
Dear Mom:
I can’t say much about our mission down here south of the border in Texas, but just wanted you to know I’m OK and eating well.
Uncle Sam sure can put on a spread.
After we secured the immediate area around the State Capital, the boys and I ventured into town to mingle with the natives and well, we get a little rambunctious after being at sea for so long.
Let’s just say these Texas girls sure can throw a mean lariat and pull you up on stage when you least expect it. Woo-eee Howdy!
During the day, we filled the rail cars with prisoners for their trip “home” and I helped pump about two million gallons of prime Texas barbecue sauce into our ships auxiliary storage tanks so we can withstand a long occupation, should it come to that, which scuttlebutt says it might.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/jade-helm-wild-conspiracy-theories
Sure, some of the natives take potshots at our fly boys in their F-15s, but by and large they are friendly and welcoming and once you get them used to the frisking and the goosing at the checkpoints, they settle down.
A couple of the guys tried to smuggle a live steer into ship’s quarters, but the Captain put a stop to that when he noticed all the basting brushes were missing from the ship’s mess.
Military command is pretty tight-lipped about what we’re trying to accomplish down here, but I’m sure AM radio is keeping you informed.
It’s great to live in a country where any dang fool thing can come into your head and before you know, out it comes from your mouth into the nearest microphone and into the ears of the informed electorate.
The great thing about the United States is everyone is allowed to be as full of sh*t as they want and proud of it. Not like them Russkies where only Putin can make a lot of crap up and say it and that’s it.
Say Hi to Dad and sis.
I sure miss Cheboygan.
The Texas-Israeli War: 1999
The Texas-Israeli War: 1999
The Texas-Israeli War: 1999
Dear Mom:
Real quick, because we’re cleaning the prairie barnacles offa the ship’s hull tonight, but we just apprehended this guy moment ago and let’s just say, he has his own private rail car back to reality.
http://wonkette.com/584472/republican-congress-does-not-care-for-all-these-anchor-babies-picks-holy-fck-racist-to-testify
We put straw down for him cause, ya know, we don’t want these people to think we’re savages or nothing.
Dear Mom:
Real quick, because we’re cleaning the prairie barnacles offa the ship’s hull tonight, but we just apprehended this guy moment ago and let’s just say, he has his own private rail car back to reality.
http://wonkette.com/584472/republican-congress-does-not-care-for-all-these-anchor-babies-picks-holy-fck-racist-to-testify
We put straw down for him cause, ya know, we don’t want these people to think we’re savages or nothing.
Dear Mom:
Real quick, because we’re cleaning the prairie barnacles offa the ship’s hull tonight, but we just apprehended this guy moment ago and let’s just say, he has his own private rail car back to reality.
http://wonkette.com/584472/republican-congress-does-not-care-for-all-these-anchor-babies-picks-holy-fck-racist-to-testify
We put straw down for him cause, ya know, we don’t want these people to think we’re savages or nothing.
Three cheers for Count and his brave comrades-in-arms, spreading Peance and Freance!
Three cheers for Count and his brave comrades-in-arms, spreading Peance and Freance!
Three cheers for Count and his brave comrades-in-arms, spreading Peance and Freance!
TNC has a second post up.
When I was going to school, I thought about every little article that I wore when I walked out the house. I thought about who I was walking with. I thought about how many of them there were. I thought about what neighborhoods they were from. I thought about which route I was going to take to school. Once I got to school I thought about what I was going to do during the lunch hour—was I actually going to have lunch or was I going to go sit in the library. When school was dismissed I thought about what time I was going to leave school. I thought about whether I should stay after-school for class. I thought about whether I should take the bus up to my grandmother’s house. I thought about which way I should go home if I was going to go home. Every one of those choices was about the avoidance of violence, about the protection of my body. And so I don’t want to come off as if I’m sympathizing or saying that it is necessarily okay, to inflict violence just out of anger, no matter how legitimate that anger is.
But I have a problem when you begin the clock with the violence on Tuesday.
TNC has a second post up.
When I was going to school, I thought about every little article that I wore when I walked out the house. I thought about who I was walking with. I thought about how many of them there were. I thought about what neighborhoods they were from. I thought about which route I was going to take to school. Once I got to school I thought about what I was going to do during the lunch hour—was I actually going to have lunch or was I going to go sit in the library. When school was dismissed I thought about what time I was going to leave school. I thought about whether I should stay after-school for class. I thought about whether I should take the bus up to my grandmother’s house. I thought about which way I should go home if I was going to go home. Every one of those choices was about the avoidance of violence, about the protection of my body. And so I don’t want to come off as if I’m sympathizing or saying that it is necessarily okay, to inflict violence just out of anger, no matter how legitimate that anger is.
But I have a problem when you begin the clock with the violence on Tuesday.
TNC has a second post up.
When I was going to school, I thought about every little article that I wore when I walked out the house. I thought about who I was walking with. I thought about how many of them there were. I thought about what neighborhoods they were from. I thought about which route I was going to take to school. Once I got to school I thought about what I was going to do during the lunch hour—was I actually going to have lunch or was I going to go sit in the library. When school was dismissed I thought about what time I was going to leave school. I thought about whether I should stay after-school for class. I thought about whether I should take the bus up to my grandmother’s house. I thought about which way I should go home if I was going to go home. Every one of those choices was about the avoidance of violence, about the protection of my body. And so I don’t want to come off as if I’m sympathizing or saying that it is necessarily okay, to inflict violence just out of anger, no matter how legitimate that anger is.
But I have a problem when you begin the clock with the violence on Tuesday.
Ben Carson – Deep thinker.
Ben Carson – Deep thinker.
Ben Carson – Deep thinker.
We have 2 branches of government, executive and legislative, and an observer, the judiciary, who stands on the side and makes inconsequential comments.
Oh, and constitution.
We have 2 branches of government, executive and legislative, and an observer, the judiciary, who stands on the side and makes inconsequential comments.
Oh, and constitution.
We have 2 branches of government, executive and legislative, and an observer, the judiciary, who stands on the side and makes inconsequential comments.
Oh, and constitution.
THREE branches, plus a fourth estate, a fifth column, a sixth element, a seventh seal, and an eight-fold way.
Collect the whole set.
THREE branches, plus a fourth estate, a fifth column, a sixth element, a seventh seal, and an eight-fold way.
Collect the whole set.
THREE branches, plus a fourth estate, a fifth column, a sixth element, a seventh seal, and an eight-fold way.
Collect the whole set.
I booked mark this comment at LG&M for things like what Ben Carson says above:
Somewhere in the middle decades of the 20th Century (when judicial decisions started going against them) conservatives came to the realization that the Common Law, under which judges determine what the law is, by applying abstract principles to particular facts, thereby creating precedents for application to future cases, was raw judicial tyranny. Somewhere in there, too, conservatives came to the realization that no one has any rights other than those explicitly specified in the Constitution. These twin insights are, of course inoperative when conservative policy preferences are respected by the courts. All this is given the somewhat-Orwellian label “originalism,” recognizing that the original intent of the drafters of the Constitution was to reject the entire system of jurisprudence with which they were familiar.
I booked mark this comment at LG&M for things like what Ben Carson says above:
Somewhere in the middle decades of the 20th Century (when judicial decisions started going against them) conservatives came to the realization that the Common Law, under which judges determine what the law is, by applying abstract principles to particular facts, thereby creating precedents for application to future cases, was raw judicial tyranny. Somewhere in there, too, conservatives came to the realization that no one has any rights other than those explicitly specified in the Constitution. These twin insights are, of course inoperative when conservative policy preferences are respected by the courts. All this is given the somewhat-Orwellian label “originalism,” recognizing that the original intent of the drafters of the Constitution was to reject the entire system of jurisprudence with which they were familiar.
I booked mark this comment at LG&M for things like what Ben Carson says above:
Somewhere in the middle decades of the 20th Century (when judicial decisions started going against them) conservatives came to the realization that the Common Law, under which judges determine what the law is, by applying abstract principles to particular facts, thereby creating precedents for application to future cases, was raw judicial tyranny. Somewhere in there, too, conservatives came to the realization that no one has any rights other than those explicitly specified in the Constitution. These twin insights are, of course inoperative when conservative policy preferences are respected by the courts. All this is given the somewhat-Orwellian label “originalism,” recognizing that the original intent of the drafters of the Constitution was to reject the entire system of jurisprudence with which they were familiar.
I think this is the current open thread, so I give y’all the latest judicial sin perpetuated by those unelected black-robed monsters:
ACLU v. Clapper
I think this is the current open thread, so I give y’all the latest judicial sin perpetuated by those unelected black-robed monsters:
ACLU v. Clapper
I think this is the current open thread, so I give y’all the latest judicial sin perpetuated by those unelected black-robed monsters:
ACLU v. Clapper
Also looking for an open thread. This made my day:
http://www.masslive.com/news/boston/index.ssf/2015/05/gloucester_police_chief_leonar.html
At a citywide forum Saturday, Campanello announced major changes in how police in this small Essex County city will handle the opioid and drug epidemic gripping Massachusetts and the rest of the country.
“We are poised to make revolutionary changes in the way we treat this disease,” he told residents at the forum.
Any addict who walks into the Gloucester Police Department with drugs and the remainder of their drug equipment – needles, pipes or other paraphernalia – and asks for help will not be criminally charged, Campanello said. Instead, they will be steered into a treatment program to help them detox and recover.
“We will assign them an ‘angel’ who will be their guide through the process,” Campanello said. “Not in hours or days, but on the spot.”
That is a man who takes civil service earnestly.
Also looking for an open thread. This made my day:
http://www.masslive.com/news/boston/index.ssf/2015/05/gloucester_police_chief_leonar.html
At a citywide forum Saturday, Campanello announced major changes in how police in this small Essex County city will handle the opioid and drug epidemic gripping Massachusetts and the rest of the country.
“We are poised to make revolutionary changes in the way we treat this disease,” he told residents at the forum.
Any addict who walks into the Gloucester Police Department with drugs and the remainder of their drug equipment – needles, pipes or other paraphernalia – and asks for help will not be criminally charged, Campanello said. Instead, they will be steered into a treatment program to help them detox and recover.
“We will assign them an ‘angel’ who will be their guide through the process,” Campanello said. “Not in hours or days, but on the spot.”
That is a man who takes civil service earnestly.
Also looking for an open thread. This made my day:
http://www.masslive.com/news/boston/index.ssf/2015/05/gloucester_police_chief_leonar.html
At a citywide forum Saturday, Campanello announced major changes in how police in this small Essex County city will handle the opioid and drug epidemic gripping Massachusetts and the rest of the country.
“We are poised to make revolutionary changes in the way we treat this disease,” he told residents at the forum.
Any addict who walks into the Gloucester Police Department with drugs and the remainder of their drug equipment – needles, pipes or other paraphernalia – and asks for help will not be criminally charged, Campanello said. Instead, they will be steered into a treatment program to help them detox and recover.
“We will assign them an ‘angel’ who will be their guide through the process,” Campanello said. “Not in hours or days, but on the spot.”
That is a man who takes civil service earnestly.