Disqus - Latest Comments for GeorgeSorwell

Re: The Strangest Paragraph in the History of Journalism

GeorgeSorwell — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:25:18 -0000

The subsequent paragraph is even more revealing:

In Gouverneur, the parlor game speculates about possible prizes for Scozzafava and other moderates who play the spoiler. When Scozzafava's husband returned to Mullin's restaurant for a post-election labor meeting, members asked him when he and his wife would be moving down to Florida for the cushy job the government had secured him with publicly funded General Motors.

"Brothers and sisters," a confounded McDougall told them, "I'm not going to Florida."

Re: Goldman Sachs CEO: “I’m Doing God’s Work”

GeorgeSorwell — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:38:30 -0000

Getting your pitchfork ready, Mikkel?

Re: TMV blogger wins race, may be first to go from blogging to political office

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:59:23 -0000

Congrats!

Re: New York Mag Profile of Nancy Pelosi: Follow-Up

GeorgeSorwell — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:04:16 -0000

A New York magazine writer decided to reply to a piece Kathy wrote here at TMV.

It seems like an interesting turn of events to me.

Thanks for the update, Kathy.

Re: Last Night’s Results: Lesson Lost

GeorgeSorwell — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:53:20 -0000

The NY district would have stayed Republican if not for the interference of national organizations.

Re: Lessons Learned? Well, Maybe

GeorgeSorwell — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:49:06 -0000

The local Republican Party nominated a candidate who has actually won elections in this area.

It was national, not local, organizations that drove her out of the race.

Now, all Republican incumbents should anticipate primary challenges from Club for Growth style candidates. Even if they come from relatively liberal states, like New York.

Re: Political Compass

GeorgeSorwell — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:43:11 -0000

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79

Re: The “Ridiculous” Health Care Constitutionality Question

GeorgeSorwell — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 06:04:08 -0000

Nic--

We're just going around in circles at this point. There have been generations of Supreme Court rulings that support the interstate commerce clause as the basis for this (and, presumably, for many other things you don't like--and, undoubtedly, some things I don't like either).

I appreciate your temperate, rational arguments. But they're not persuasive.

I know you are a Libertarian and (unlike so many others who claim the same) are reasonably consistent in your philosophy. I respect that. But you are like the expert on general relativity in the physics department, rolling his eyes at the very notion of a ninety-degree angle. True enough, if you care to follow the math. But I want my house built by a Euclidian.

In light of precedent, your claims don't hold water, let alone persuade.

Re: The “Ridiculous” Health Care Constitutionality Question

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:37:36 -0000

Jazz--

Show me where I said there was a federal mandate.

Of course I know it's a state requirement. But the government requirement that I buy insurance is a pre-existing condition.

So: I am not outraged by a proposed requirement that I must purchase health insurance.

I don't see it being terribly different. Again, I'm going to make reference to the comment by Dissenting Justice that I linked to earlier.

Re: The “Ridiculous” Health Care Constitutionality Question

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:28:57 -0000

Andy--

If you're main concern is states rights, maybe you've got a case. I kind of doubt it (again, see the comment by Dissenting Justice), but I'm not a lawyer.

On the other hand, if your main concern is individual liberty, why should it matter which level of Leviathan is oppressing you?

I'm out of time here, Andy, so I'd like to say I enjoyed this. I'm not sure if I'll have time to answer anything tomorrow, but I'll certainly be interested in reading what you have to say.

Re: The “Ridiculous” Health Care Constitutionality Question

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:08:47 -0000

Andy--

With all due respect, Andy, I'm not troubled by this. You are. So isn't it up to you make a persuasive case that this upsets the balance between individual liberty and Congressional authority.

Again, I'm not trying to be offensive--but you've already conceded the Constitutional right of the federal government to draft you out of your home and off to kill and be killed. So it seems to me that you're way past the point on the slippery slope of worrying about health insurance mandates. Your logic doesn't hold up.

I don't especially think the Constitution was intended to be some kind of logical puzzle--I think it is supposed to a rational basis for reasonable governance. The modern health care system was no more foreseeable to the Founding Fathers than Stealth Aircraft. That's why they put flexibility in the Constitution.

Re: The “Ridiculous” Health Care Constitutionality Question

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:36:03 -0000

Jazz--

The Constitution has an interstate commerce clause, just like it has a common defense clause.

It also provides for a Supreme Court to sort problems out.

Since I am already required to purchase car insurance and homeowners insurance, I am not outraged by a proposed requirement that I must purchase health insurance.

I do not see any slippery slopes.

At all.

Re: The “Ridiculous” Health Care Constitutionality Question

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:03:16 -0000

Andy--

I just don't see the basis for any Constitutional complaints. At all.

All I can do is refer you back to the comment made by Dissenting Justice, which I linked to earlier.

Re: The “Ridiculous” Health Care Constitutionality Question

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:15:38 -0000

Jazz--

Regulation of health insurance does seem like a natural outcome of the interstate commerce clause.

I appreciate your suggestion that I take a deep breath and pause for a moment.

Maybe you should do the same.

Re: The “Ridiculous” Health Care Constitutionality Question

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:54:31 -0000

Andy--

I think there is a huge difference between common occurrences and weird extreme events. So I'm not sure how to respond to you.

I have to confess, I have no idea what you're talking about. Since no federal bill has been passed, no one has been jailed by the federal government for refusing to buy health insurance. I do know, however, that there's a lot misinformation and disinformation out there.

Also, I'm sure you know there used to be military draft. At that time the federal government had the authority to jail draftees who refused induction into the Air Force. So I'm not really sure the difference you're claiming actually exists.

Finally, whenever this kind of Constitutional argument come up, there are always people who claim to be upholding real and true Constitution in the face of years and decades and centuries of actual Supreme Court rulings going back to the midnight appointments. The commenter I linked to above, Dissenting Justice, made the stripped down version of the argument for cases like this that has been accepted by the Supreme Court for generations.

I have to admit, it seems kind of ridiculous to pretend otherwise and ask why it's Constitutional this time.

Re: The “Ridiculous” Health Care Constitutionality Question

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:57:11 -0000

Here's what the commenter who calls himself Dissenting Justice had to say about this on Kathy's thread:

The Constitution does not explicitly mention an Air Force, and airplanes did not exist at the time the document was drafted. Saying that the Air Force is in the "spirit" of national defense is intellectually indistinct from saying that regulating health insurance, including mandating coverage, is in the "spirit" of interstate commerce and the taxation and spending powers.

Also, your argument about the content of the Tenth Amendment was also explicitly rejected by the Court in McCulloch v Maryland. Under the Articles of Confederation, states retained all powers that were not "expressly" delegated to the national government. The Tenth Amendment eliminated the word "expressly." This language (in addition to the Necessary and Proper Clause) clearly demonstrates that "explicit" enumeration is not required; Congress has implied powers.

You called the Air Force argument silly in your update. But when you do that, you're doing the exact same thing you're complaining about.

And "silly" is pretty much the same thing as "ridiculous".

Re: Great Moments in Bad Political Optics

GeorgeSorwell — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:13:32 -0000

All politics is local.

It's national players like the Club for the Growth that are trying to defeat Scozzafava.

Scozzafava was selected as the candidate by her local Republican Party committee. Presumably, they would like to win the election. Presumably, they would like to keep this seat Republican. Presumably, they remember the special election held in upstate New York earlier this year, where an unknown Democrat beat a well-known Republican even though the district had a majority of registered Republicans. Presumably, they picked someone moderate in order to better satisfy their local electorate.

The viability of moderate Republican candidates is being destroyed by so-called conservative Republicans.

Scozzafava's defeat would mean the end of moderate Republicans as viable candidates even in liberal states like New York.

Re: Queens Brutal Gay Beating Hate Crime Caught On Tape

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 22:33:19 -0000

Dr E--

Thanks for the explanation.

Thanks also to T-Steel for the work he did, and does.

Re: Queens Brutal Gay Beating Hate Crime Caught On Tape

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:15:22 -0000

Austin Roth--

I accept your apology.

Last week, Tidbits drew a clear distinction between motive and intent. In these kinds of crimes the intent is to injure someone strictly for their membership in a group. Therefore, without the hate, there would be no intent to injure and therefore no crime would be committed. I described this more clearly during the discussion last week.

If you think logic trumps experience, you're free to make that case. If you think it's unfair for me to bring in additional evidence, like the Supreme Court ruling, you're free to make that case. If you prefer to ignore some of my arguments, like what I said about equal protection, you're free to do that as well.

For that matter, if you think personal insults make your case stronger, indulge in them.

I have the opportunity to respond or not.

Have a nice day.

Re: Queens Brutal Gay Beating Hate Crime Caught On Tape

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:52:09 -0000

Austin Roth--

I did not remove that comment. Not at all. I don't know where it went, but I'm not the one who took it down.

Not at all.

It is, in fact, still available in its original unedited form, in my Discus achieve. I trust that is evidence enough to support me.

Why would I take it down? There are no lies or misrepresentations is that comment.

I brought in the Supremes to show the argument in favor of hate crimes that is strong enough to persuade even Antonin Scalia of their merit. I thought maybe you would step up your intellectual case against them.

I don't see the part of that comment where I claim you called them unconstitutional. You're the one who's doing the misrepresenting, Austin Roth. You. You are. Not me.

If "the rhetorical device of reductio ad absurdum" is the best intellectual case you can muster, then you should go with that. Maybe you think the law is nothing but a matter of logic. But I'm going to fall back, once again, on the thinking of conservative judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said, "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." If you want to say the experience of redheads is equivalent to the experience of homosexuals, that's your choice. I'm sure you do the best you can.

As for the fact that assault is already a crime, in our system, intent matters. (Thanks to Tidbits for clearing up the distinction between intent and motive last week.) That's why there are distinctions between murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and self-defense. It is also a fact that women, blacks, Jews, gays, and other minorities are subject to violence simply for their membership in their group. There's nothing logical about it--but I don't see any reason to deny the truth of that experience. It seems to me that this fact is a valid basis for a law PROTECTING them. And you know what? That fact also seemed like a valid basis to William Rehnquist, who was no liberal.

As for the idea of "special protection"--what a joke that is. The Mitchell case referred to earlier is proof enough that these laws are also available to protect white males.

There was absolutely no reason for me to remove that comment. That's why I didn't do it.

Re: Queens Brutal Gay Beating Hate Crime Caught On Tape

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:11:30 -0000

T-Steel--

Since you are the technical guru here, I expect you to explain this.

Re: Queens Brutal Gay Beating Hate Crime Caught On Tape

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:06:42 -0000

Austin Roth--

I didn't delete anything. Maybe T-Steel can explain what happened, but I can't.

I also didn't lie or misrepresent you.

More to follow, and soon, but I want this much out there right away.

Re: Queens Brutal Gay Beating Hate Crime Caught On Tape

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:38:13 -0000

Austin Roth--

Beclowning myself?

I have done my best to take you seriously on this thread.

Have a nice evening.

Re: Queens Brutal Gay Beating Hate Crime Caught On Tape

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:49:49 -0000

Austin Roth--

"Surely the fact that one group needs more protection can't mean that another group needs less?"

People who don't get beaten don't need assault laws.

But the laws are there for everyone. Just in case.

In the case I referred to, Wisconsin v Mitchell, Mitchell led a group of black men to assault some randomly passing white man just because the random guy was white.

In America, it's illegal to beat someone just for being white.

The protection afforded by laws on sexual orientation would be available equally. But one group would probably need that protection more than the other.

Re: Queens Brutal Gay Beating Hate Crime Caught On Tape

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:31:26 -0000

Austin Roth--

Again, I am not a lawyer. If there is some technical legal meaning to the word "protection" that I am unaware of, then the fault is mine. If, however, you want to keep accusing me of twisting your meaning, go ahead. Enjoy.

I'd also like to note that sixteen years ago, in 1993, William Rehnquist (not a liberal) wrote the opinion upholding hate crimes legislation in the case of Wisconsin v Mitchell. His decision was unanimous, which means that Antonin Scalia (not a liberal) and Clarence Thomas (not a liberal) also voted to uphold hate crimes legislation.

Also, just as I had trouble seeing the seriousness of the crime of parading without a permit, I am having trouble seeing the actual existence of redhead-hatred as the basis of actual violence, except perhaps among the crazy, the intoxicated, or the makers of lame excuses for their poor choices. Even then, it still seems pretty tenuous.

But I guess you wouldn't make a substance-free hypothetical situation the basis for your deeply-held belief. I'm sure of that especially in light of the video at the top of this thread showing an actual man being just because he's gay. The serious problem of violence against homosexuals actually exists. So thank you in advance for providing a link to the actual case of redhead-hatred-caused-violence you have in mind.

I'm looking forward to reading the actual details.