Disqus - Latest Comments for nicrivera

Re: Discontinuing Self-Published Reader Comments

nicrivera — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:41:33 -0000

I continue to believe that the disabling of comments is bad idea.

However, if the threat of disabling of comments (and how I wish it was only a threat) was merely a ploy concocted by the TMV crew that was meant to bring all of us together who normally disagree with one another and to consider how much we shall miss one another's verbal companionship, then it was an incredibly ingenious one.

Re: Discontinuing Self-Published Reader Comments

nicrivera — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 22:18:26 -0000

I think that there's enough people here that care more about civility than oppressing the opposing view that it could work.

What it all comes down to is Who watches the watchers?

In other words, if the people who were flagging the inappropriate comments had to identify themselves as the flaggers and were held responsible for their own policing actions, then I think, as you say, we would be able to have a system of self-policing in which commenters would be able to flag inappropriate comments without needlessly censoring the comments board.

Re: Discontinuing Self-Published Reader Comments

nicrivera — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 22:06:30 -0000

dear Nic, re moderation, there's no 'looking for crimes about to be committed.' No 'inspection' of anything. Not even close. Just reading through.

But Dr. E, if the posters and commenters were to take responsibility for the identifying of posts that contained abusive language and then notified moderators, wouldn't that (in theory) reduce the amount of time moderators needed to spend policing the comments section?

It seems to me that the recent spat of abusive comments isn't even the underlying issue here.

If it is the possibly of TMV to have moderators read every single comment that is posted on TMV, there will be problems regardless of the content of the individual post.

For example, if TMV were to become so popular that we had 50 posts per day, and the average post received 100 comments, that would be a total of 5,000 comments per day! That means that even if every single one of those 5,000 comments were civil as could be, the TMV moderators would still have the impossible task of having to read through 5,000 comments per day.

It seems to me that TMV moderators have imposed impossible standards upon themselves. I realize that the 5,000 comments per day is extremely hypothetical, but there's no reason to believe that with growing success that TMV would not be able to one day achieve that many comments. So it seems to me that the continuing popularity of TMV was bound to one day become the constraining factor over moderating comments, regardless of the content of the individual comments.

I would hate to see anyone be banned from TMV (even if I did find his/her comments to be extremely offensive). But it seems to me that having posters and commenters share the responsibility of policing the comments section and then having the moderators ban repeat offenders for a period of 30 days (or whatever amount is deemed fair) would be a far more efficient use of the moderators' time.

Re: Discontinuing Self-Published Reader Comments

nicrivera — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:28:43 -0000

I think the fact that this comment thread reached 100 comments in only 12 hours provides all the proof one needs as to the importance of the comments section.

I would wager that on this day, TMV visitors have spent more time composing thoughtful replies to this post than they have reading all the other 20 posts combined.

One can only imagine how much different the TMV will be a week from now when visitors casually spend five or six minutes skimming through the day's posts before promptly moving on to the next website.

Re: A Few Thoughts Now That I’m Back

nicrivera — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:03:57 -0000

There really is no talking to them – particularly to “Tea-Baggers” until they get over their angers, fears, and other demons.

I believe that the name that most Tea Party members prefer to call themselves and be referred to is "Tea Partiers" or "Tea Party members." If there are Tea Party members that actually refer to themselves as "Tea-Baggers", I believe they represent an extremely small minority of the Tea Party movement. So the continued use of the term "Tea-Baggers" is probably not going to be very helpful.

Re: Discontinuing Self-Published Reader Comments

nicrivera — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:32:37 -0000

This may seem like an incredibly dumb question, and maybe it is, but I have to wonder why it is that our moderators are spending so many hours taking the time to read every single comment that is posted at TMV?

People need to take responsibility for their own actions and their own words. If someone writes a bigoted and/or hateful comment at TMV, none of the other TMV commenters should be held individually responsible for this one individual's bigoted and/or hateful remark, nor should TMV be held collectively responsible for this one individual's bigoted and/or hateful comment.

I understand that what is posted at TMV indirectly reflects on all of us, since a failure to address a bigoted and/or hateful comment might be construed by visitors as the TMV community condoning such bigoted and/or hateful ideas. However, the way to deal with such comments, it seems to me, is on an individual basis.

Usually when a crime is committed, the sequence goes like this:

1) A perpetrator commits the crime against a victim.
2) The victim alerts the authorities to the crime that has been committed.
3) The authorities investigate whether a crime has been committed.
4) If a crime has indeed been committed, then the authorities decide what actions to take against the perpetrator of the crime.

Under such a scenario, if a commenter makes a bigoted and/or hateful comment towards another individual, it should be the victim's responsibility to alert the authorities (moderators). That way, instead of the authorities (moderators) taking the time to read and inspect every single comment, their time is better focused on only the questionable comments that some people have had a problem with.

If the victim of a particular bigoted/hateful comment cannot even bother to take the time or effort needed to alert the authorities (moderators), then it becomes questionable to me whether the victim suffered any real harm in the first place, and hence, whether the victim was a truly even a victim. And if there is no victim, then there is no crime being committed, unless you subscribe to the notion that there are such things as victimless crimes (which most of you must know by now that I do not).

It utterly baffles me that the TMV moderation model seems to have adopted the pre-crime model, where moderators are sent out to inspect every single comment, looking for a crime before the crime has even been committed. This would be tantamount to the government sending police officers to every single house in a particular neighborhood on a daily basis just to insure that no crimes are being committed, when obviously, the more reasonable (and far more efficient) method would be for the local police to respond only to those situations in which a crime has actually been committed by a perpetrator against a victim.

Obviously, this isn't my website. I don't own it. I don't pay the bills. I don't spend the countless hours that it takes to moderate the site or fix internal bugs. So what I think is or is not fair is ultimately irrelevant. I'm just operating under the assumption that we're all rational human beings at TMV, and the current moderation policies seem (to me) to be irrational.

Unlike some of the commenters here, I've been commenting here since at least 2006, and I can tell you that if you think some of the more recent comments have been "uncivil", then you haven't seen anything. I can remember back during the height of the Iraq War, when some very nasty comments were made by posters and commenters alike--comments which would make the more recent "uncivil" comments seem like casual small talk.

Somehow we managed to survive that very tense period four years ago without banning comments, so I'm kind of confused why we're banning comments now, at a time when the comments are generally more civil, and the uncivil comments are far less common.

And if anyone here seriously doubts my contention that the recent "uncivil" comments are no more uncivil than what we had four and a half years ago, I invite you all to explore the TMV archives. Or better yet, google "themoderatevoice" AND "Iraq War" or "themoderatevoice" AND "Hurrican Katrina" and see what I mean.

Re: Discontinuing Self-Published Reader Comments

nicrivera — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:00:44 -0000

If a TMV post is written in a forest and no one is around to read it, does it make a sound?

Re: Discontinuing Self-Published Reader Comments

nicrivera — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:49:50 -0000

Wow.

I find this new development to be extremely unfortunate, and has taken me completely be surprise.

As many of the commenters have already pointed out, I think that we learn as much from the comments as we do from the posts themselves.

As a sometimes poster here at TMV, the only reason I even post at all is to receive feedback from TMV regulars.

I find it very unfortunate that this decision has been made by TMV, and while I understand some of the reasoning behind it, this will almost assuredly lead to:

1) less posts by TMV authors (since posters will have less incentives to write posts)
2) less thoughtful and accurate posts by TMV authors (since posters will no longer be able to be challenged in a public forum
3) less collegiality among TMV posters/commenters (since commenters will no longer be able to express their views, and neither commenters or posters will be able to see what others are thinking)

Re: We’ve Seen These Faces Before

nicrivera — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 09:52:44 -0000

If you are referring to the government (whether Republican or Democratic controlled) using "force"(the courts, fines, prisons, etc.) to enforce the laws of the country, what other way do you suggest the government do so?

I'll make an attempt to answer that question as best I can, but in asking your question, you seem to merely be deflecting attention from the point that I was making earlier, which is

There are a good number of people (including here at TMV) criticizing anti-government groups in general and the Tea Party movement in particular in the basis that they're inherently violent, while themselves, implicitly endorsing state-sanctioned violence as the solution to society's programs. And I find that somewhat hypocritical.

In answer to your question:

Without government, we would have no government-imposed laws or state-sanctioned violence, and we would potentially have a freer, happier society.

However (and this is a big however), even in the absence of government, we would still have violence. With or without government, there will always be people in the world who are either A) violent psychopaths, or B) people who get into honest disagreements with their neighbors and who seem to know no other way to settle their disputes other than by resorting to violence.

That's why we have government--to provide a means to arbitrate disputes and protect people when disputes turn violent. That's why our predecessors created our systems of courts and legally-binding contracts and law enforcement and an armed forces. They created these things, not to initiate violence against others, but to prevent violence from occurring in the first place and to deal with violence when it does occur.

We, as Americans, seem to have lost that hold of that ideal. We, as Americans, seem to have lost confidence in our ability to use rational debate and persuasion as the means to convince others to listen to follow our ideas and have instead come to rely upon violence and the threat of violence as the means to force others to live and act the manner we want them to live and to forcibly prevent others to from living and acting in ways that we don't want them to live and act.

In answer to your question, DdW, I am not advocating that we abolish government. I am simply advocating that government return to the more humble roots upon which it was founded in the first place. I am simply advocating that the primary reason for the government should be for conflict resolution and that when the government does resort to violence, that violence should be directed towards aggressors who are actually harming the American people and not toward non-violent people who are breaking the thousands of victimless crime laws that our government has foisted upon us.

To those of you who have left comments above: when you condemn the violence that has been perpetrated by some of those in the anti-government movement and Tea Party movement, I would like to be able to take your words at face value and believe that--like me--you oppose aggression (i.e. violence or the threat of violence that is non-defensive in nature).

But it is really difficult to take the words of some of you at face value when some of you seem to be rather--shall I say--selective in your condemnation of violence, condemning those on the other side who either commit or implicitly sanction violence while doing little to nothing to condemn those on your own side who have committed violence or implicitly sanctioned violence.

How many of you here at TMV who are now condemning violence, nonetheless, voted for Joseph BIden as vice president, hmm?

Joseph Biden, as we all know (or should know) was one of the strongest supporters of the Iraq War. Biden was one of the strongest supporters of using state-sanctioned violence against Iraq during the Clinton Administration, and he was also one of the strongest supporters of using state-sanctioned violence against Iraq during the Bush Administration until he (like so many other Democratic politicians) saw the disaster that was the Iraq War, and backtracked from his former hawkish position.

Joseph Biden, as we all know (or should know) has been one of the strongest supporters of American's failed War on (some) Drugs. He was one of the architects of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (a propaganda arm of the federal government which has openly advocated the use of state-sanctioned violence against non-violent drug users). He has also co-sponsored a number of anti-drug resolutions, including the 2003 RAVE Act that was eventually incorporated into the 2003 Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act, which itself was incorporated into the 2003 PROTECT Act, which was marketed to the American people and passed under the guise of preventing and fighting child abuse--NOT fighting the War on Drugs.

Joseph Biden may never have actually committed violence against another human being with his own hands, but as a politician, he has REPEATEDLY advocated the use of state-sanctioned violence against non-violent drug users as well as Iraqi civilians. The blood of thousands of innocent people--both in this country and in Iraq.

And yet how many of you now condemning violence voted for him in 2008? How many of you?

The thrust of my argument is not to excuse the words and actions of the small minority of idiotic psychopaths on the right who are now committing or implicitly endorsing violence. The thrust of my argument is point out how ingrained violence has become in American society and how acceptable it has become for Democrats, Republicans, Independents, progressives, conservatives, and moderates alike to implicitly endorse state-sanctioned violence as the solution to our problems--as a means to force our neighbors to live and act the manner in which we would like them to live and act and to forcibly prevent our neighbors from living and acting in manners in which we do not approve.

Perhaps, instead of condemning others for violence, we should be turning inwards and asking ourselves why we are so quick to endorse violence as the means by which we would have others follow our own ideas--however well intention those ideas might be.

Re: We’ve Seen These Faces Before

nicrivera — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 08:42:47 -0000

There's no question that violence committed by some of these "activists" and the threats of violence that they have made are completely unacceptable and ought to be condemned.

But I find it unfortunate that the overall tone of this post as well as many of the comments to it seems to be one that is trying to conflate being anti-government with being pro-violence.

We have to remember that the U.S. government--like all governments--is force. Virtually everything that the government does, it does with the implicit threat of violence towards those who either do not comply with what the government wants or by engaging in certain activities that the government has deemed unacceptable.

Other forms of government violence are far more explicit, as is the case when the government invades foreign countries it doesn't like, sends the BAFT/FBI to lay siege upon the compound of some cult it doesn't like, or sends SWAT teams and DEA agents to kick down the doors of people who may or may not possess drugs within the confines of their own private property.

An argument could be made that it is the people who are so pro-government and go out of their way to defend the government's violent actions who are the ones implicitly supporting violence.

So if you're all going to go off on the violent nature of anti-government types, you really ought to make a distinction between principled libertarians who--by definition--oppose both government and non-government aggression and the small minority of psychopaths on the right who see violence as the answer to virtually every problem.

Re: Marijuana Legalization in California: Doobie or Not Doobie?

nicrivera — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 23:05:00 -0000

WITH REGARDS TO THE SO-CALLED "MARIJUANA GATEWAY DRUG" THEORY

During the last ten years in which I've been more active in politics, I must have watched at least fifty debates on the issue of marijuana decriminalization/marijuana legalization. And when I say fifty debates, I'm being very conservative in my quanitification. With all the Bill O'Reilly vs. libertarian, Sean Hannity vs. libertarian, law enforcement officers for prohibition vs. law enforcement officers against prohibition debates that I've seen during the last ten years, that number might very well be closer to one hundred.

But with all those debates that I have seen, I don't think I have EVER come across a single marijuana decriminalization/marijuana legalization debate in which the person against decriminalization/legalization didn't trot out the old marijuana gateway drug theory.

Yet the much-touted "marijuana gateway drug" theory has never been anything more than a bunch of half truths and correlation = causation arguments posing as "science." Interestingly enough, the "marijuana gateway drug" theory has never been accepted by the majority of the medical and scientific community (which isn't exactly a hotbed for marijuana legalization). Several studies addressing the "marijuana gateway drug theory" have been conducted during the last fifteen years, and while all of the studies have shown correlation between marijuana use and use of harder drugs, none showed any evidence of causation.

People without backgrounds in science or statistics often fail to understand the distinction between correlation and causation and often them as if they were they were the same. But, of course, they're not the same thing at all, and if people were to treat them as the same, they would come to some pretty pretty uninformed conclusions.

A classic case is the coffee & cigarettes example. Those of you who have ever taken a Statistics class have probably heard of this example. There is ample data showing that people who drink coffee are stastically more likely more like to smoke cigarettes than people who do not drink coffee. In other words, there is ample data that suggests a correlation between coffee consumption and cigarette smoking. There is, however, no evidence whateverso that suggests that coffee consumption causes cigarette smoking. And I daresay none of you have ever heard a politician proposing a coffee gateway theory.

Of the studies that have been conducted, some, such as the 1999 study conducted by the Institute of Medicine have concluded that

There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.

Others, such as the 12 year study conducted by the University of Pittsburg, have even concluded that there is enough evidence to refute the marijuana gateway drug theory. Of note, no scientific study has EVER demonstrated any solid evidence in favor of the marijuana gateway drug theory beyond the simple correlation argument that could apply just as easily to cigarettes (as a predictor or drug use) or coffee (as a predictor of cigarette use).

In my opinion, it's because so many people resort to half truths and pseudoscience instead of empirical evidence that we as a society cannot seem to have an honest debate over marijuana decriminalization/marijuana legalization. I'm not arguing that pro-marijuana people haven't been known to exaggerate or resort to half truths or pseudoscience themselves (I've even met some), but it seems to be a nearly universal phenomenon among people on the anti-marijuana side of the debate. As I mentioned earlier, I have not yet come across a single marijuana debate in which the anti-marijuana debate didn't resort to the unfounded marijuana gateway drug theory.

So when any of you come across an anti-marijuana stalwart who trots out the old marijuana gateway drug theory, you have to point out to them that there's absolutely no empirical evidence behind the pseudoscience that they are spewing. And you have to ask their prospect converts

If this were a debate about space exploration, would you be listening to someone who posited the discredited theory that the sun revolves around the earth?

Re: Quote of the Day: Why Is Obama Treating Netanyano So Rudely

nicrivera — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 20:54:43 -0000

Possibly Obama just hates Israel and hates Jews. That’s plausible — certainly nothing in his actions suggests otherwise, really.

It's comments like this from Glenn Reynolds that make me wonder why anyone takes him seriously.

The idea that criticism of the Israeli government = hatred of Jews is so self-evidently flawed, you have to wonder why any intelligent human being would ever make such an assertion if for no other reason than to smear anyone who would dare criticize the Israeli government.

Arguing that criticism of the Israeli government = hatred of Jews would be like arguing that criticism of the Indian government = hatred of Hindus or criticism of the Saudi Arabian government = hatred of Muslims.

Unbelievable.

Then again, this is the same Glenn Reynolds who vociferously supported the dropping of American bombs on Baghdad (a city of more than 5 million people) while proclaiming himself to be a libertarian.

Re: Will HCR Revive The “Lost” Tenth Amendment

nicrivera — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:31:16 -0000

As a consequence, it seems to me the stronger line of argument is to draw a bright line between what is proposed and what has been accepted in the past by the SCOTUS while continuing to point out that the original text in context actually supports an even more limited answer than where the SCOTUS has come out.

That may be so.

I have argued elsewhere that while Health Care Reform is hardly unprecendented, the Individual Mandate portion of the current bill is unprecented, and I fully expect the Individual Mandate portion of the current Health Care Reform bill to be challenged in the Supreme Court sometime during the next five years (it's hard to know how quickly this portion of the bill will be challenged since it doesn't even go into effect until 2014).

How the SCOTUS will ultimately rule, however, is anyone's guess.

I will admit that I do get very "impassioned" when dealing with the Interstate Commerce Clause. Part of the reason is that it is extremely frustrating to hear people use the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify very broad interpretations of the federal government's power when there is plenty of evidence demonstrating that the people how actually wrote the Interstate Commerce Clause never intended it to be used in the manner that it is being used.

However, another reason is that I don't think most Americans realize just how much damage the Wickard v. Filburn Supreme Court ruling (which essentially argued that the Interstate Commerce Clause gives the federal government virtually unlimited power to regulate, restrict, or prohibit the buying and selling of goods that don't even cross state lines) has done to the cause of individual freedom in the United States. The Interstate Commerce Clause has been used to justify some of the very worst police-state powers that the federal government has assumed over the last fifty years.

Even within the last five years, the SCOTUS has ruled the Interstate Commerce Clause grants DEA agents the authority to break into people's houses and arrest them for growing cannibis plants in their back yard. It's one thing to argue that the government should have the power to prohibit individuals from growing/producing drugs in their houses/yards. It's quite another for people to make the idiotic argument that growing a dozen cannibis plants in one's back yard constitutes interstate commerce.

That's what the American people need to think about each time the government passes a law that gives them yet another power. It's not simply our economic freedoms that our being trampled on but also our individual freedoms. And if people realized just what kinds of injustices have been commited by the federal government in the name of the interstate commerce clause, I don't think people would be so quick and eager to trot out the interstate commerce clause to bolster their argument in favor of increasing the scope of the federal government's power.

Re: Will HCR Revive The “Lost” Tenth Amendment

nicrivera — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:30:19 -0000

Then why is Medicare Constitutional? Or Social Security?

The short answer is that they're not--at least, not from an enumerated powers standpoint. There is absolutely nothing in the enumerated powers section of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution that says anything about:
1) The federal government involvement in providing, overseeing, or funding any kind of medical care program, or

2) The federal government providing, overseeing, or funding any kind of disability insurance program, or

3) The federal government running providing, overseeing, or funding any kind of pension/supplemental income for the elderly program.

However, I suspect that many people who argue that Medicare and Social Security are Constitutional do so based upon their very broad interpretation of the first clause within the Enumerated Powers section (i.e. the Taxing and Spending Clause), which states:

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

The argument, I presume, would be that since Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare of the United States, that Congress has the implied power of being able to spend taxpayer money on any program that Congress believes provides for the general welfare of the United States.

I believe this interpretation is incorrect because:
1) General welfare has been interpreted so broadly and subjectly by Congress that it could be used to justify granting themselves virtually any power that they wanted, and

2) Allowing congress to fund any program that they believe provides for the general welfare of the United States would render moot the reasons for having Enumerated Powers in the first place.

The debate over whether the Taxing and Spending Clause/General Welfare Clause permits the federal government to create/oversee programs like Medicare and Social Security is a tricky one due in great part upon the vagueness of the phrase general welfare.

What is not vague or any ambiguous, however, is the purpose of the Interstate Commerce Clause which was spelled out unambiguously within the Federalist Papers. At the time that the U.S. Constitution was drafted and ratified, everyone understood that the Interstate Commerce Clause was meant to give the federal government the power to prevent individual state governments from imposing duties and protectionist measures upon one another. None of the Founding Fathers ever intended for the Interstate Commerce Clause to grant the Federal Government to the power to subsidize, restrict, or prohibit the buying, selling, or distribution of goods across state lines (and certainly not the buying, selling, or distribution of goods within a single state). Even Alexander Hamilton, who was about the biggest "Big Government" politician among the Founding Fathers, was unambiguous about his belief in this.

So, Elrod, if you want to continue believing that all these government programs are Constitutional based upon the Taxing and Spending Clause/General Welfare Clause, well that's one thing.

But I would urge you to refrain from using the Interstate Commerce Clause as a means of buttressing your argument that these government programs are Constitutional. Because unlike the Taxing and Spending Clause/General Welfare Clause, which remains fairly ambiguous to this day, there is absolutely nothing ambiguous about the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Founding Father's left us plenty of evidence regarding the purpose and function of the Interstate Commerce Clause, and it is not in any way consistent with your argument above.

Re: Will HCR Revive The “Lost” Tenth Amendment

nicrivera — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:07:00 -0000

As long as we are talking about interstate commerce - and modern health care most certainly involves interstate commerce (even if health insurance is regulated at the state level now) - the courts will not interfere.

Elijah Sweete's post specifically referred to the Individual Mandate sections of the the Health Care Reform bill.

If an individual makes a personal decision and decides not to purchase health care insurance, how does that have ANYTHING to do with interstate commerce?

It doesn't.

If the much used and abused Interstate Commerce Clause can be used to allow the federal government to force inividuals to purchase health insurance, then under that SAME LOGIC, the federal government can force individuals to purchase ANYTHING it wants them to.

Why stop at health care insurance? Why not pass a law forcing people to purchase food or clothing or low rent housing?

This was NEVER the intention of the interstate commerce clause. As I have pointed out at TMV at least half a dozen times--even going so far as to quote specific portions of the Federalist Papers that refer to the interstate commerce clause, the purpose of the interstate commerce clause was to encourage free trade between the individual states by preventing state government from imposing tariffs and protectionist barriers against one another.

The interstate commerce clause is not an excuse for either you or any politician to impose your will on other people, fining or imprisoning them for refusing to purchase a service that you personally feel are necessary.

Re: Universal Health Care – It’s the principle that won tonight

nicrivera — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 05:42:32 -0000

Not likely. I have flood insurance. I am required by law to have it and I can buy it privately or through the federal government. It works well and is not at all unconstitutional.

Different states have different laws with regards to mandated insurance. It may very well be the case that your state has laws requiring certain people to purchase flood insurance (just as most states have laws requiring drivers to purchase care insurance).

However, I was specifically referring to the federal government. And to my knowledge, there are no federal laws requiring individuals to purchase insurance of any kind. Therefore, your flood insurance example doesn't refute the point that I was making.

Re: What are rights (and what do they have to do with health care)?

nicrivera — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 05:34:20 -0000

It seems that many who argue that the Constitution does not give the right to healthcare, forget that the document is a living document, which is, the founding fathers of this nation made the document so it could, evolve as society evolved.

Where do you get the idea that the U.S. Constitution is a living document? This sentiment can be found nowhere within the Constitution itself, and I am not aware of any of the Founding Fathers ever stating or implying that the clauses within the U.S. Constitution were to be interpreted or reinterpreted any differently among future generations of Americans.

The Founding Fathers came up with a way to change the U.S. Constitution. It's called the Amendment process. If a politician or activist wants to pass a federal law that is not consistent with the enumerated powers granted to the U.S. Congress by the U.S. Constitution, then it's that politician's or activist's responsibility to initiate the Amendment process before passing a law that would be otherwise unconstitutional.

To date, absolutely no amendment has ever been passed granting Congress the power to intervene in health care. That's what made Medicare such a radical step in U.S. history. It wasn't that Medicare was bad idea. It's that members of Congress suddenly granted themselves the power to intervene in health care without amending the U.S. Constitution in any way, shape, or form.

And with the most recent health care reform bill, Congress has gone even further--granting the federal government the power to force Americans to purchase health care insurance. As I've stated at TMV many times before, there is absolutely no precedent for this. Most state governments have passed laws requiring individuals to purchase various kinds of insurance (i.e. car insurance, medical malpractice insurance, health care insurance), but to my knowledge, this would be the first time in history that the federal government has ever imposed such a law.

And for people like to go around stating that that's alright because the Constitution is a living document just boggles the mind. Sure, you might think the most recent health care reform bill is a swell idea. But sooner or later, Congress is going to pass some law that you don't care for or a law that you don't think the government even has ay business considering in the first place, and what's you're argument going to be then?

The idea that the federal government can pass any law it wants so long as a majority of Congress or a majority of the American people support it is not consistent with the principles upon which this nation was founded.

Re: VIDEO: House Passes Health Care Reform 219-212

nicrivera — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:20:48 -0000

Actually "asked" is inaccurate, demanded and forced would be more appropriate if this thing finishes the process.

Whoever thought we would see the day when American citizens could be fined and even imprisoned for refusing to purchase health care insurance?

Apparently, the right to health care insurance now includes the right to fine or imprison otherwise decent, law-abiding Americans who refuse to allow the federal government to force them to purchase health care.

And there I give you the only real difference between the "moralist" right and the "moralist" left.

The "moralist" right wants to punish people for committing acts that social conservatives consider immoral.

The "moralist" left wants to punish people for refusing to support government programs that fiscal populists consider necessary and good.

Either way, there's too many people in this country (left and right) who believe that passing a law is the solution to virtually every problem and that it's completely acceptible to punish people who act (or refuse to act) in accordance with our wishes.

Re: Universal Health Care – It’s the principle that won tonight

nicrivera — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:38:54 -0000

I believe, firmly, that health care is a right and not a privilege.

Any right that can only be granted by violating another person's personal freedom is not a right at all. It is a priviledge. No one person or group of people has the right to force another person to do something that he or she goes not wish to do, which is exactly what the current health care reform bill does.

In order to solve the problem of "freeloaders", the current health care bill has imposed both individual and employer mandates.

Under the individual mandate In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine (there are some exceptions for low-income people).

Under the employer mandate, employers with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance or pay a fine of $2000 per worker each year if any worker receives federal subsidies to purchase health insurance.

In other words, the federal government is not only making it a law requiring people to purchase health care insurance, it is making it a law requiring certain people (employers with more than 50 employees) to purchase health insurance for other people or else be fined.

I believe this is a truly unprecedented step in United States federal law. In the past, the federal government has required American citizens to pay a federal income tax in order to pay for the entitlement programs and services offered by the federal government. I believe, however, that this health care reform bill is the first time in U.S. history that the federal government has forced American citizens to purchase services from private companies.

The idea that the federal government can force people to purchase health care insurance, and fine or imprison them if they do not comply is blatantly unconstitutional. And if the right to health care requires you to force people to purchase health care against their will with the threat of fines or imprisonment if they do not comply, then there is no such right.

Re: The Three Chances of Publishing A Book: Slim, Fat, and None? No, Quite the Contrary

nicrivera — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 11:55:20 -0000

How many people do you know who have elevendy-gillion unfinished book starts languishing in metal file drawers somewhere. Or just one book, started elevendy jillion times, but then set aside after page fifteen or page fifty, as life and other matters demand sustained attentions to family, work, health.

I can definitely relate to this. I've spent the last 10 1/2 years working on a novel. After cranking out the first 100 pages in about three months, I expected the finished product (which I had expected to be about 500 pages at the time) to be completed in about 3 or 4 years. It's now 10 1/2 years later, and the novel has ballooned to 750 pages (single spaced, size 10 font) and will probably be at least another 300 pages before it's completed.

It's good to hear that getting a book published is easier than completing it. If I ever get close to completing mine, perhaps I'll contact you, Dr. E. Thanks for your insights regarding this topic.

Re: Talk Radio’s Michael Smerconish Quits Republican Party to become Independent

nicrivera — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:38:22 -0000

Add 41 fascist Republicans to 15-20 "centrist" Democrats plus a "centrist" president equals nothing to help the people!

If you're going to label every single Republican in the Senate as fascist, then you had best explain what you mean by fascist, because otherwise it just sounds like an ad hominem attack.

Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re: George Will on Populism, and Sarah Palin

nicrivera — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:08:37 -0000

She is a religious extremist and has no business leading a free society.

Is Palin really a religious extremist?

I tend to think of people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as religious extremists, and I would be hesitant to place Palin in that category unless someone comes up with a criteria for religious extremism that Palin satisfies.

I think everyone would agree that Palin is a social conservative. As a general rule, social conservatives tend to be more open to the idea of the government legislating morality on people. Many of these social conservatives equate morality with religion, and thus, it is often their religious beliefs that they wish to either have imposed or officially sanctioned by the government. To me, it doesn't seem that Palin is any more likely to favor imposing religiously-based morality than your typical American social conservative, and I wouldn't label all American social conservatives as religious extremists.

In addition to socially conservative views, Palin also tends to have some very pro-war/pro-intervention views with regards to foreign policy, which I think is actually more worrisome than her generic socially conservative views. If, for some reason, Palin ever did become president, I think it is far more likely that she would entangle the U.S. military in a war in the Middle East than that she would ram a bunch of religiously-inspired socially conservative legislation through Congress.

Re: George Will on Populism, and Sarah Palin

nicrivera — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 02:52:47 -0000

She understands that POTUS first priority is to keep our nation safe from enemies.

Unlike Barack Obama and Joe Biden, Sarah Palin 1) supported the Iraqi Surge and 2) recognized when the surge was succeeding and had succeeded.

I fail to see how the Iraq War (which Palin supported) helped keep our nation safe from its enemies. I am not aware of any objective evidence that would suggest that the United States is safer today because of the Iraq War.

Palin would not abdicate the United States role as keeper of the peace in many areas of the world - including on the seas. Pres. Obama already is making our allies nervous in this area. Palin understands we must prepare for war if we want peace; understands the world has enjoyed relative peace, in part, b/c of the strength and committment of the U.S.A.

It seems to me (and I encourage you to correct me if I'm wrong), that you define strong on defense as as being 1) supporting pre-emptive war, and 2) supporting nation-building.

Ms. Palin--both in her speech to the Tea Party Convention and on her facebook page (I thank you for providing the weblinks for TMV readers)--proposes a foreign policy that is essentially the same as the Bush Doctrine: pre-emptive war and nation-building.

You wrote earlier that Ms. Palin is a supporter of smaller government, suggesting that you also support smaller government. Yet there is nothing about pre-emptive or nation-building that is consistent with smaller government. War is the health of the state. War grows the size of government. Always.

Moreover, wars almost always lead to the restrictions on civil liberties (i.e. Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus during American Civil War, Wilson's jailing of Eugen Debs during WWI, Roosevelt's interment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, Kent State shootings during Vietnam War, George W. Bush's Patriot Act during Global War on Terrorism).

National-building is extremely costly. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost the American taxpayer nearly $1 trillion. More than $700 billion of that has been spent on Iraq alone. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that grants the federal govenment to be the policeman of the world.

Re: George Will on Populism, and Sarah Palin

nicrivera — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 01:20:16 -0000

She is strong on defense.

Just what exactly does it mean to be strong on defense?

I mean, I believe myself to be strong on defense, but my stating that I am strong on defense doesn't give anyone any clue as to what my actual positions are.

Would you be willing to lay out your criteria as to what political positions constitute being strong on defense and then explain how Ms. Palin fits this criteria?

Re: CNN Poll: Americans Want Third Party and Tea Party Candidates Would Hurt Republicans

nicrivera — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:22:09 -0000

C'mon, Nic. I agree that when looked at for the POV of "wow, both parties suck, we need someone else in here making sense", that the 34% is discouraging. But when looked at in a little more depth, this article goes to exactly one reason why someone would oppose a third party: because it splits support from one of the main parties. To me, this is exactly what happened in the NY 23rd, to the detriment of the GOP and the (for all intents and purposes) Tea Party, both.

But if you read the question carefully (and I literally cut and pasted the question straight from the poll), you 'll that it doesn't ask whether the questionee would personally support a third party candidate. It asks if the questionee would support or oppose having a third party to run against Democrats and Republicans, and third of Americans polled responded that they actually opposed having a third party.

The fact of matter, however, that American already has several third parties. The Libertarian generally fields candidates for both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate every two years in virtually every state, and the Constitution Party and Green Party, while not as strong, typically fields candidates for the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate multiple (maybe even a majority) states. One wonders, do these 34% of Americans who oppose third parties want existing third parties to no longer exist? And if the answer is yes, then why do they want these existing parties to no longer exist?

My guess is that it is partisanship. In certain areas of the country (generally liberal-leaning) Democrats believe that a strong third-party candidate is more likely to "steal" votes from them than from the Republican candidate, and in other areas of the country (generally conservative-leaning) Republicans believe that a strong third-party candidate is more likely to "steal" votes from them than from the Democratic candidate.