Disqus - Latest Comments for nicrivera

Re: Obama’s Year One Accomplishments

nicrivera — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:04:04 -0000

I'm not a fan of Obama either. But then, I wasn't a fan of George W. Bush. Nor was I a fan of Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, or Ronald Reagan.

In fact, I don't think I can name a single 20th century president who I can say that I am a fan of. Presidents are falliable individuals just like the rest of us, and I don't see any reason why we should be granting them the adultation that we do. The fact the we have collectively elevated the position of the president as high as we have is bad enough, but the partisan sycophancy is, of course, even more unforgivable.

I find it amusing whenever I find myself agreeing with some of Obama's critics, only to hear those critics then go on to offer of their endless praise of Ronald Reagan as if he were the second of Christ.

Americans ought to have more pride in themselves than to allow themselves to become partisan sycophants, slavishly defending even the most indefensible actions of their beloved political leaders.

Re: Ban the Burqa? Not so fast…

nicrivera — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:47:28 -0000

It is fascinating, BTW, to hear the author imply that antisemitic comments are and should be quite acceptable among liberals. One wonders if the opportunity to engage in such vilification wasn't the actual purpose of this post. If not, the false parallels could more sensibly have been omitted.

Having read and reread Jazz's entire post, I'm having a difficult time understanding why you are characterizing any of Jazz's remarks as antisemitic. Even after having read you comments further down in the comment thread, I'm still having difficulty how you could arrive at such a conclusion.

Calling someone's comments antisemitic is a pretty serious accusation. Perhaps you meant a different word to convey your criticism?

Re: Ending the Abuse of the Supermajority Rule

nicrivera — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:23:09 -0000

Kathy,

Of course, you're criticizing supermajority rules now that Democrats are in power and you are sympathetic to the legislation they wish to pass. But somehow, I don't think you'd be singing the same tune if Republicans controlled 230 seats in the House and 55 seats in the Senate.

Were you this eager to get rid of supermajority rules when Republicans controlled the Senate?

And more importantly, can you not foresee a future possibility when Republicans again have control of the Presidency and both houses of congress and that supermajority rules might be the only thing standing in the way of Republicans passing a truly bad piece of legislation?

Re: INTERVIEW WITH A VEGAN by Guest Voice: Elijah Sweete

nicrivera — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:31:39 -0000

"Live and let live" is my motto. I have no problem with people following specific lifestyles or diets.

I do think, however, that calling people "murderers" because they consume meat is offensive and unhelpful.

Re: A Wicked Old Man

nicrivera — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:59:16 -0000

Thank you President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, and all the brave soldiers who saved these innocent children by having the moral courage to take definitive action in Iraq.

DaMav,

How is it moral courage to campaign on the premise of opposing nation building and then flip-flopping less than three years later and carrying out one of the largest nation building campaigns in our nation's history?

How is it moral courage is claim that the administration knows as fact that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD's when our own CIA expressed doubts to this claim?

How is it moral courage to order the bombing of a city of more than five millions people, leading to the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians?

You can cite the thousands of Iraqi civilians killed by Saddam Hussein all you want, but two wrongs don't make a right. The justification over invading Iraq might be debateable, but the facts are not. Bush flipped flopped on foreign policy, he misrepresented the certainty to which the administration believed Hussein had WMDs, and he ordered the bombing of a city with more than five million people. There is absolutely nothing morally courageous about that.

Re: House Passes Sweeping Financial Reform Bill

nicrivera — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:44:49 -0000

The 1,279-page House bill would create a new federal agency dedicated to consumer protection, establish a council of regulators to police the financial landscape for systemic risks, initiate oversight of the vast derivatives market and give the government power to wind down large, troubled firms whose collapse could endanger the entire financial system.

That's exactly what we need . . . yet another federal agency.

This seems to be the only way Congress knows how to operate. When the tens of thousands of laws on the book fail, just pass another law. And when the hundreds of federal agencies already in existence fail to solve the problem, just create another federal agency.

Re: Amateur Pundits School Glenn Greenwald

nicrivera — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:20:44 -0000

Call me crazy, but I think Glenn is just being consistent. These were policies that almost all folks on the left were screaming holy hell about when Bush was implementing them. Are they just supposed to be OK with them now because the guy they like is continuing them?

This is exactly right.

Love him or hate him, Glenn has been more intellectually consistent in his assessment of Obama than most the left-leaning bloggers and pundits. Unlike all too many of the Obama worshippers throughout the mainstream media and the blogosphere, Glenn has actually criticized Obama on civil liberties and foreign policy, which is probably a reason why his articles are linked to by several libertarian blogs.

One of my biggest complaints about Bush supporters wasn't that they held different political positions than my own, but that they would defend policies undertaken by Bush that they would have never have supported had it been done by a Democratic president. Some of the loudest defenders of Bush when it came to war, nation-building, and civil liberties had also been some of the harshest critics of those same policies when being undertaken by Clinton.

How quickly Republicans changed their tune when one of "their guys" entered the White House. And how quickly Democrats have changed their tune now that Obama is in office.

Now is not the time for double standards. The refrain "But Bush did it too" or "But Bush was even worse" or "Obama deserves the benefit of the doubt" just aren't good enough excuses--not when it comes to critical issues such as civil liberties and foreign policy.

Re: Amateur Pundits School Glenn Greenwald

nicrivera — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:26:22 -0000

Sorry, Pete, but I think your title has it completely backwards on this one.

As Glenn points out, those "leaving the left" aren't doing so because of any philosophical disagreements with modern mainstream liberalism. Rather, they are doing so because they claim that those of the "left" are being too critical of Obama.

This, in my humble opinion, is a rather idiotic excuse for "leaving the left." Believing in particular political principles--and not an attachment to any one politician--should be the basis for what constitutes "liberalism" or "conservatism."

The blind worshipping that some Obama supporters have for the president is bad enough. That these apologists are now castigating "the left" for not falling into line with their worship of the president is worse still.

Re: Congress Lifts Rider Preventing D.C. From Implementing Medical Marijuana Law

nicrivera — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:21:51 -0000

Funding for the White House “drug czar’s” ad budget has been slashed by more than a third of its size last year. Studies have repeatedly shown that these ads actually cause teens to use more — not fewer — drugs.

If congress really wanted to save money, it would defund the entire department of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Its so called "Drug Czars" have been hopelessly indifferent to facts, the U.S. constitutional, and the most basic of civil liberties as they have waged their war on their fellow Americans throughout the Bush Sr.-Clinton-Bush Jr. administrations.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy has no place in a free society. All components of the ONDCP having to do with education and treatment should be transferred to other cabinet departments or to the individual states. The ONDCP ought to be legislated out of existence.

Re: Congress Lifts Rider Preventing D.C. From Implementing Medical Marijuana Law

nicrivera — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:11:48 -0000

Just one small step toward injecting a bit more insanity into our unconstitutional, unjust, and unworkable War on (some) Drugs.

Re: Un-Constitutional, Un-Democratic, Un-American

nicrivera — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:00:23 -0000

If Thomas Jefferson saw what the "Party of Jefferson" was trying to implement, " Thomas Jefferson would be spinning in his grave.", if he ever crawled out of it, he would vote Republican.

I doubt Jefferson would vote for either the Democrats or the Republicans, as neither party supports the classical liberal values that he believed in.

As much as Jefferson would had disapproved of the Democratic Party's elastic reading of the Constitution and economic interventionism, I seriously doubt he would have approved of a Republican Party that passed of the Patriot Act, starting a pre-emptive war on Iraq, and mixing of religion with politics.

Jefferson and Madison would both be libertarians, by today's standards, and if they supported any party at all, it would be the Libertarian Party.

Re: Un-Constitutional, Un-Democratic, Un-American

nicrivera — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 03:32:07 -0000

Thomas Jefferson would be spinning in his grave.

I agree that Jefferson would be spinning in his grave over a religious group dictating their to the federal government such that the whole of the American people would be subject to the religious group's personal beliefs.

However, I also believe that Jefferson would be spinning in his grave over the entire health care insurance that Democrats are attempting to pass. Jefferson didn't even support a national bank. Do you really think he would have supported the government interfering with health insurance?

Re: The Choice

nicrivera — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:41:20 -0000

We've had that discussion before on TMV. Mandatory health insurance would fall under the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. .

No offense, Kathy, but you're claims as to what is constitutional just aren't credible.

A month or two ago, someone at TMV asked you whether you could come up with any powers the federal government is not authorized to have, and as I recall, you couldn't come up with a single one. Your prevailing view on government seems to be that the federal government is authorized to do anything it wants, so long as it is acting "for the general welfare" of the people. The fact that you would even cite the interstate commerce clause as a justification for the federal government mandating that people buy health insurance is an insult to those of us who have pointing out to you time and time again that the interstate commerce clause gave no such power to the federal government.

I at least have offered evidence to back up my claims, going so far as to cite specific passages from Federalist Papers as evidence. You, on the other hand, offer no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims. Your claim that "the argument that it's unconstitutional doesn't hold up" is a rather bold one given that you don't even bother to offer any evidence to disprove my contention. And you can't fall back on Supreme Court precedent on this one, as there is none. The Supreme Court has deemed as constitutional some pretty radical things in the past, from criminalizing the amount of wheat grown by farmers (Wickard v. Filburn) to criminalizing the growing a cannabis for intrastate use (Gonzales v. Raich), but it has never criminalized the failure to buy a service/product mandated by the federal governent.

The health insurance mandate is completely without precendent in American history. It is not specifically authorized by the U.S. Constitution, nor has the U.S. Supreme Court ever ruled such a power was constitutional. So your claim that the health insurance mandate is constitutional is completely without merit.

You and everyone else here are entitled to your beliefs. I understand that you and others here are motivated by the best of intentions for your fellow Americans. But I wish we would stop with the charades and the pretending. If you want the federal government to have the power to enact a piece of legislation that you feel with help millions of Americans, then fine, make your argument the best you can, and we'll see how the chips falls. But this bending over backwards and parsing of the Constitution in an attempt to justify granting the federal government any power you see fit to grant it has got to stop.

Earlier in this comment thread, redbus asked "What's the difference between a liberal and a progressive?" and the prevailing answer seemed to be that they are more-or-less two names for the exact same term. I would argue, on the other hand, that the terms differ in that they came from different origins--liberals were originally concerned with the abuses commited by big governments while progressives were originally concerned with the abuses commited by big corporations. The progressive solution was to use the power of big government to fight the abuses of big corporations, and the term "liberalism" was eventually co-opted by progressives to mean the same thing.

However, even to this day, "liberalism" retains some of its original meanings, namely respect for civil liberties and individual freedom. And in my humble opinion, anyone who claims the federal government has the constitutional authority to do whatever it wants, so long as it is acting for the public good has forfeited all rights to call himself/herself a liberal. Anyone who supports the "interstate commerce clause" as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Wickard v. Filburn (which has been used as justification for throwing thousands of people in prison for the commiting of victimless crimes) has forfeited all rights to call himself/herself a liberal.

Anyone here who agrees with Kathy that (one the health insurance mandate passes) we should throw people in jail for refusing to purchase health insurance, please stop calling yourselves liberals, because there is absolutely nothing liberal about such a position.

Re: The Choice

nicrivera — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 04:01:41 -0000

What about car insurance?

From a legal standpoint, the purchasing of car insurance is mandated by most state governments but not the federal government. The health care mandate now being considered would (to my knowledge) be the first time in history that the federal government passed a law forcing you to purchase a product/service. Even given the Supreme Court's tendency to allow certain government programs not authorized by the U.S. Constitution, I would predict that such mandate would be considered by the Supreme Court to unconstitutional given that there's no precendent of the federal government ever passing such a law.

From a utilitarian standpoint, you have to consider the unforseen negative consequences of having such a mandate. When you pass a law forcing people to do something, the government is then criminalizing the failure to do it. You have to ask yourself, Kathy, do you really want to see people be fined or jailed for refusing to comply with the health insurance mandate? Because I sure don't.

Re: Should Dick Cheney Run in 2012?

nicrivera — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:24:10 -0000

The only poll that counts is the election and Bush was handily re-elected. The faulty intelligence was well known by that point and incorporated into the judgement of the electorate. The Bush/Cheney team remains undefeated and has now retired. Better put some ice on it.

First of all, Bush was not "handily re-elected." Bush defeated Kerry by an electoral vote of 286 to 251 and a popular vote of 50.7% to 48.3%. Historically speaking, those are some of the smallest winning margins ever in a presidential election.

Secondly, the idea that faulty intelligence was "incorporated into the judgement of the electorate" is something I find extremely dubious, given the fact that in April 2004, 57% of Americans polled said they believed that Iraq was "directly involved" in carrying out 9/11. If 57% of Americans erroneously believed in an Iraq-9/11 connection seven months before the election, it makes me seriously doubt that Americans (in general) were well informed regarding Iraq at the time of the election.

It seems to me, DaMav, that you are deliberately cherry-picking the numbers you want in a rather poor attempt to substantiate your point. The 50.7% that Bush won in the 2004 general election represents the apex of his polling numbers during the last 4 1/2 years of his presidency. Following the 2004 election, Bush's poll numbers steadily dwindled down to 30%--a fact that seems at odds with your "Bush was resoundingly vindicated" claim.

Re: Should Dick Cheney Run in 2012?

nicrivera — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:53:00 -0000

The adjudication of the invasion of Iraq and other Bush actions and policies already occurred in 2004, and Bush was resoundingly vindicated. History has moved forward and Bush and Cheney have assumed the role of senior statesmen for their honored eight years of service.

Are you serious? Bush won with a mere 51% of the vote, and that's supposed to make us believe that his decision to invade Iraq has been vindicated? Perhaps you stopped paying any attention to polls after 2004, because polls since then have consistently shown that the American public does not believe that the United States should have gone to war in Iraq.

All the things that Bush & Cheney claimed Iraq had before the war--the WMDs, the aerial drones, the mobile bioweapons labs, the yellow cake, the aluminum tubes--none of them were never found. But, go ahead and keep telling yourself that Bush & Cheney have been "vindicated."

Re: Should Dick Cheney Run in 2012?

nicrivera — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:39:01 -0000

Cheney is a man of conviction...

A man of conviction? Really? How's this for conviction?

Re: Code Pink responds to Obama

nicrivera — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:06:55 -0000

As if you need me to say what I think about this. Almost the equal of MoveOn’s “General Betray-us”.

I don't follow. MoveOn questioned the patriotism of General Petraeus simply because it didn't agree with his position on the war. I don't see how Code Pink's ad does this in any way, shape, or form.

I also have to second Leonidas' comment. At least Code Pink is being consistent, which is more than I can say for partisan Democrats and Republicans whose position on war seems to change depending on who's in the White House.

Re: Huckabee, Clemmons, Clemency, & Criminal Justice

nicrivera — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:29:23 -0000

Bill O'Reilly is your classic big government conservative. When it comes to civil liberties and law-and-order type issues, O'Reilly consistently advocates whatever position will lead to the most amount of government control, the most draconian punishments, and the most amount of time in jail. Whether its the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, or obscenity on television, he consistently takes the pro-government/anti-liberty position.

O'Reilly is the type of guy that sees every social issue in terms of black and white with no shades of gray in between. Everything is either good or evil, and God help you if you're a civil libertarian who is invited onto his show and doesn't agree with his rigid view of the world.

Re: GOP Conservative “Litmus Test” on the Horizon for Republican Party Support?

nicrivera — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:33:05 -0000

I actually don't see anything wrong with asking politicians running for political office under a particular political party to adhere to some of the fundamental positions of the party. Political parties, in theory, are supposed to be working together to advance a particular set of political ideas. When members of a political party are all over the map on fundamental issues, it confuses the populace about what the party stands for.

Let me give an example.

The Libertarian Party is a party that used to stand for something: individual freedom, free trade, and limited government. Unfortunately, in its desire to attract more people to the party, it has allowed people to join the party who have positions that are one hundred eighty degrees opposed to what libertarians believe in.

People who who don't know very much about the Libertarian Party will often say "Oh, I didn't know Bob Barr was a Libertarian" or "I didn't know that Mike Gravel was a Libertarian", and will then come to the conclusion that Libertarians support some of the very unlibertarian positions that Bob Barr and Mike Gravel hold.

Part of the reason that I voted Libertarian in 2004 was because I opposed the War on Drugs and the Iraq War. For the Libertarian Party to nominate a presidential candidate who was once an ardent supporter of the War on Drugs (Bob Barr) and a vice presidential candidate who was once an ardent supporter of the Iraq War (Wayne Allyn Root) was kind of a slap in the face.

It's probably not a good idea to insist that everyone who joins a particular party agree with a particular platform. But if you're going to actually run for public office, you ought to actually agree with the party on the fundamental issues.

The problem with the Republican Party, however, is more than whether a politician agrees with the party platform. It's about the inherent incoherence of a party platform itself. The majority of the ten-point plaftorm focuses of opposing the growth of the federal government. Two of the planks, however--those dealing with foreign policy--do completely the opposite; that is, they insist upon maintaining an expensive, interventionist foreign policy.

I'm not sure even Robert Taft, the former Republican Senate Majority leader and "Mr. Republican" himself would have agreed with 80% of the positions in this platform.

In short, I don't believe that political parties should be imposing "litmus tests" on people who join then. However, I do believe that both the Republican and Democratic parties should be fielding candidates that actually stand for a coherent set of ideas--something that is entirely to rare nowadays.

If the Republican Party wants to be seen as fiscally responsible, then it can't allow polticians who vote for pork barrel spending and skyrocketing deficits to continue winning their congressional seats year after year. And if the Democratic Party wants to be seen as socially tolerant, then it can't allow politicians who support draconian drugs laws and refuse to defend civil liberties to continue winning their congressional seats year after year.

Re: The Economist’s Interview with Radley Balko

nicrivera — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:31:59 -0000

Maybe it should be noted that Balko is the blogger who publicized the Cory Maye case.

Yeah, one can't give enough credit to Balko for all the work he did on the Cory Maye case. His interview didn't mention Cory Maye, per se, but it did mention Steven Hayne, the Mississippi medical examiner whose flawed forensics the district attorney relied upon in Cory Hayne's case.

Speaking of Cory Maye, I think it's interesting to note that it wasn't liberals or conservatives who stepped forward to bring justice in the Cory Maye. With the exception of the local Democrat public defender who previously defended Cory Maye, it was libertarians like Radley Balko and the libertarian law firm that stepped forward to defend him and brought the issue to a wider audience. I find it sad that so many so-called freedom loving liberals and freedom loving conservatives as well as the mainstream media have almost completly ignored this case.

Re: Adam Lambert Plays the Gay Card

nicrivera — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:27:04 -0000

I didn't watch the American Music Awards nor catch Lambert's antics on the internet, so I can't really comment on whether what he did was inappropriate or not. From what I've heard, I don't think I'd be all that offended by it, but at the same time, I don't think I'd want my children (if I had any) watching it.

This incident brings up an important topic, and this is how people in a free society deal with incidents like this. They could express their outrage via word of mouth. Or they could express their outrage on internet blogs as many of you have here. On the other hand, if you truly wanted to have an impact on the type of programming your television stations provide, you all would write letters to your local television station expressing your outrage. And if your really wanted to put your money where your mouth is, you would write to your local television station telling them that your were no longer paying for their programming and then you would promptly cancel your cable subscription.

That last thing, we ought to do, however, is to insist that the government further censor television more than it already does. That's not what people do in a free society. You all have the right to watch television, but unless you own a particular television station or created a particular television show, you have no right to dictate to them (through the government), what they can and cannot show on television. Showing nudity, profanity, and/or violence on television is not an infringement on your rights. Whatever harm you feel such television programming is doing to you and your family can easily be resolved by turning the television off (and sending complaints to the television stations responsible).

I think one of the big problems in America is that virtually everyone has a vast sense of entitlement. People often think they are entitled to dictate what can and cannot be seen on television. Celebrities often think they are entitled to act like boors without suffering any consequences. Right-wing and left-wing moralists often think they are entitled to dictate what lifestyles should and should not be criminalized. And minority groups often think they are entitled to be loved and accepted by everyone they come across and that bigotry can somehow be magically cured by affirmative action and hate-crimes laws.

My advice to everyone is to project your values by serving as an example for others to aspire to. Let's not be so quick to turn to the government to solve such petty problems as what a certain television station chooses to air. If you present yourself and your arguments rationally and tactfully, then others will at least listen to what you have to say.

And those few of you who wish to continue hating gay people or whatever minority group that has earned your ire--that is your right--a right that you can always count on me to defend. But don't expect me to have any respect for such a position.

Re: I’m going rogue! (And make war on fish)

nicrivera — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:43:26 -0000

David,

When you get far enough through Going Rogue, maybe you could put a quick summary of Palin's political positions as stated in the book. Everything I hear in the media about her is all style and no substance. I hear all about her rabid fanbase and the controversies she has or has not caused but very little analysis as to what she believes.

Yeah, I guess you could say that I'm lazy in that I could buy and read the book myself.

On the other hand, I don't think I should have to pay money to learn what a politician believes. Either they state plainly what they believe during their political speeches or debates or they're not worth my time.

Re: On the Military Draft and True Patriotism

nicrivera — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:36:37 -0000

I understand the logic of reinstating the draft. It would make it more likely that those serving in the military would be more representative of the nation, and it would also make Americans less likely to support unnecessary wars if they know their sons and daughters could be drafted to fight in such wars.

However, I really question the principle behind this entire idea.

How many of you here are of the age that you could be drafted to serve in the military?

How many of you here have sons or daughters who are the of the age that they could be drafted to serve in the military? And as a follow up, if your son or daughter were drafted to go off and fight in a war they didn't wish to fight in, would you still support the draft?

I truly question have genuine some of you are in supporting the draft. How many of your own family members are you willing to risk in order to have a military draft?

These are people's lives we're talking about. Don't think for one moment that just because were to have a military draft, that our future congressmen/women, senators, and presidents would suddenly be reluctant to wage unnecessary war. You're assuming that politicians will suddenly start acting rationally, and that's not likely to happen.

We had a draft during the late 60's, and that didn't stop LBJ from sending tens of thousands of American boys to die in Vietnam. It didn't stop the rich and the politically connected from getting deferments then, and it won't now.

The idea that a bunch of politicians are going to come up with a "new" draft that is somehow more fair and equitable is a joke. What are the odds of the actually happening? Consider the odds and then ask yourself, "Am I willing to gamble with other people's lives?"

Re: On the Military Draft and True Patriotism

nicrivera — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:08:27 -0000

Wow. I cannot believe how quick you all are--liberals, conservatives, and moderates alike--to reinstate the draft.

There is nothing "patriotic" about forcing young Americans to fight in a war against their will. There is nothing "patriotic" about sending young Americans half way around the world to die.

You all seem to be asking the wrong question.

The question shouldn't be, "How do will ensure that Americans of all socioeconomic backgrounds equally shoulder the burden of going to war?"

The question should be, "How do we create the conditions in which no American has to be shoulder the burden of war?"

The answer, of course, is to change our foreign policy. Our government has spent the last sixty years pursuing a militaristic foreign policy--spending more money on our military than the next ten nations combined and installing more than seven hundred military bases in more than one hundred twenty countries around the world. And for what? Are we safer because of it? Are our basic freedoms made more secure by our military adventurism?

Rather, I'd say the opposite is true. As Randolph Bourne noted during World War I, War is the health of the state. History shows us that governments use war to stifle basic freedoms. And there is no more egregious violation of freedom than a bunch of politicians forcing people to go to war against their will.