Disqus - Latest Comments for nicrivera

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)

adesnik — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:30:56 -0000

I'll be glad to help out once I've read enough of the book. But is it really free to find out what pols believe? How much do we pay for internet connections? For cable television? Newspaper subscriptions. I believe it was an old WaPo ad whose slogan was "Free specch: 25 cents". Amazingly, that's what the paper cost in the first years of this decade.

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

kathykattenburg — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:14:14 -0000

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.

This is the truth. This is the real point. Applause applause to you for stating it so clearly, simply, and straightforwardly.

Thank you, nicrivera.

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

SteveK — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:50:55 -0000

... There is nothing "patriotic" about sending young Americans half way around the world to die.

Exactly nicrivera... EXACTLY! Your logic, reasoning and position on this is why I am in favor of reinstating the draft… a loophole free draft.

The "young Americans" that we [sic] have been "sending halfway around the world to die" have not been children or family of those who have sent Americas Youth to war and therefore the fools that got us into, and are keeping us involved in, this waste of life and national resource have nothing personal at stake.

If a “loophole free” draft were to be instituted these unprovoked wars would end long before the first "chicken-hawks" son or daughter set foot in either Iraq or Afghanistan. I don’t think it would take long for a 2010 version of a Truman Commission to be formed either.

Re: On the Military Draft and True Patriotism

Polimom — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:39:06 -0000

Actually, nicrivera, I'm inclined to support a draft, but my view of it wouldn't be limited to military service. I think a two-year stint post high-school in service (whether in urban renewal projects, armed forces, conservation efforts) would be a good thing across the board.

We have more than a disconnect between people who serve in the armed forces and people who don't. We have a disconnect as well between people and their country.... and more specifically, between people who expect something of their country. Far too many of them expect something for nothing. I suspect instituting a mandatory 2 year service policy would level the playing field considerably in a number of ways.

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.

Re: Abortion and Health Care Reform

nicrivera — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:31:04 -0000

Kathy,

This is the inevitable result of getting the government involved in the health care insurance business. The more the government becomes involved in health care insurance, the more politicized the abortion issue will become.

That the Democrats in congress didn't see this coming is mind-boggling.

Re: Fox News Airs Misleading Old Footage Again

nicrivera — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:06:50 -0000

Let's not be too hard on Fox News. We all know that the space-time continuum has a left-wing bias.

Re: The Still Wonderful Wizard Of Oz

nicrivera — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:01:42 -0000

The Wizard of Oz was a great movie for its time and even stands out as a great movie when compared to many of the movies that came out decades afterwards. I was always disappointed, however, in how far the movie strayed from the book. I realize that all movies stray a little bit from the books on which they are based, but in the case of The Wizard of Oz, the movie basically lopped off the final 1/3 of the book, which included some of the best parts of the book (i.e. the treacherous journey throught the mountains of the Hammerheads, the cowardly lion's battle with the giant spider).

I'd love to see a movie remake of the Wizard of Oz that stayed truer to the book. It would also be interesting to see an movie adaption of any of the other books in the Wizard of Oz collection, given that L. Frank Baum and Ruth Thompson wrote more than 30 Oz books. The 1980's sequel, while not as good as the original, was pretty interesting in that it was much darker than the 1939 movie.

Re: The Yokels Are At It Again

CStanley — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:05:19 -0000

I wonder, is Obama's bowing to the Japanese Emperor really that big a story in the media and around the blogosphere? It would seem to me that with the rampant federal spending being done by the Obama administration, the potential passage of the Democrats' $1.2 trillion Health Care bill, and the escalation of the war in Afghanistant, the Right would have something more substantial to be talking about.

As is typical of all blogosphere discussions these days, both sides spend more time on the more superficial issues than the substantive ones. It happens because one side will react to a superficial issue or event, sometimes while still also engaging in the more serious issues as well, and then the other side finds it more advantageous to try to ridicule their opponents outrage (often even overstating the degree of it) than to respond to the blog posts that focus on issues.

You can see it happening repeatedly at blogs like this one, where we see several bloggers posting about how the right is reacting to the bow and it's rare to see a blogpost seriously responding to something that a right wing blogger has written about policy (whether it be about healthcare, deficit spending, the war, etc.)

Re: The Yokels Are At It Again

nicrivera — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:42:59 -0000

The president then asked the reporter what the rest of his question was, specifically saying it had several parts and he wasn’t sure he remembered the last one. I’m sure he knew that he had not answered the query about his personal feelings, or opinion, regarding the morality of the bombings — but he did leave that opening for the reporter to repeat the question and the reporter did not, for whatever reason.

Donald Douglas bluntly criticizes Obama for evading the question. I would have liked to hear his answer, too, but not for the same reason. Douglas’s post title says it all: ” ‘America’s First Pacific President’ — Won’t Defend U.S. Nuclear Attacks at Hiroshima, Nagasaki.” Emphasis is mine. And Douglas goes on to comment (at the bottom of the post):

What else would you expect from a blog titled "American Power"?

With a title like "American Power", you might suspect that Mr. Douglas' blog promotes a neoconservative ideology. And a quick perusal of his blog archives would show that you'd be right.

Re: The Yokels Are At It Again

nicrivera — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:18:13 -0000

The bowing seems like a bit much. I know nothing about the traditional greeting protocols and etiquette of Japan, but I would assume that in a country as Westernized as Japan, a simple handshake would suffice.

I wonder, is Obama's bowing to the Japanese Emperor really that big a story in the media and around the blogosphere? It would seem to me that with the rampant federal spending being done by the Obama administration, the potential passage of the Democrats' $1.2 trillion Health Care bill, and the escalation of the war in Afghanistant, the Right would have something more substantial to be talking about.

Re: What To Call The ’00s

nicrivera — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 02:04:29 -0000

I never knew who David Brin (author of The Postman) was until I saw him giving an interview with the Libertarian Alternative. He's a left-leaning libertarian with some rather unorthodox views on the nature of libertarianism versus socialism and feudalism.

Re: Situational Justice

nicrivera — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:31:37 -0000

I think the big problem with assigning "liberal" and "conservative" bias is that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have acquired so many different and conflicting meanings as to render them virtually useless as labels. We have a general idea of what is "liberal" and what is "conservative" on individual issues, but we seem to have diffculties when assigning those terms to a person's overall political perspective. And individuals seem to have very subjective views on the definitions for such political labels.

There are some authors and commentors at TMV whose views don't strike me as very moderate at all. But for all I know, these individuals perhaps don't consider themselves to be moderates. Thus, I try to assess authors and commentors more on the basis of partisan bias and whether their arguments are logically consistent.

Re: Ex-Miss USA Carrie Prejean Flips Out On CNN’s Larry King

nicrivera — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:55:46 -0000

Wasn't Prejean's fifteen minutes of fame over six months ago?

I realize that as one time Miss California, she was more famous than most of us will ever be, but this seems to be dragging on for an inordinate amount of time. When you think of the people in the world who have done more for the world (good or bad) and received less media attention, this all seems so silly.

How did one person become so famous for doing so little? Is this all the result of her answering a single political question during the Miss USA pageant? Her answer wasn't even all that memorable. It was neither a hate-filled diatribe toward gays, nor was it a heart-felt stand against the status quo. Yet people who disagreed with her remark made her out to be some monster while people who agreed with her remark made her out to be a hero. Yet she was neither.

Each and every one of us at this blog have made comments far more controversial and far more brave than anything Prejean said during the Miss USA pageant. Prejean is a controversy made up by the media for the purpose of increasing ratings and partisan hatred. And sadly, Prejean is going along with it, playing up the conservative victim card.

If CNN violated the terms of the agreement made before the show, then they are obviously wrong. But it seems silly to me for Prejean to demand this kind of media attention and publicity and then shirk away from scrutiny and tough questions. The whole "sex tape" issue really ought to be a non-issue. It's hardly as shocking or sensational as the media is making it out to be.

But then again--so was Prejean.

Re: We Have Gay and Lesbian Veterans, Too

Father_Time — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:41:07 -0000

You are incorrect. It's not "whether I", it is what the law reads.

Basically, it is legal to discriminate against homosexuals for differing reason largely across the United States.

After a veteran leaves the military, don't ask don't tell become irrelevent. Your point is moot.

It's not a matter of "allowing homosexuality", it's a matter of giving homosexuals equal rights as homosexuals beyond what all of us all ready have guaranteed in the constitution. Then you could not protect yourself, business, or, find any public place that that could be legally free from homosexual behavior and sub-culture. You can throw someone out of your restaurant for playing loud music, but not a homosexual wearing pink hot pants, roller skates, and, behaving like a gay pride parade freak show. This offensive behavior would then be protected under the law. As it is now, the restaurant owner can discriminate this behavior off his/her business property open to the public. Homosexuals would thus have the same protections as race. IMO that would be wrong and causes harm.

Re: We Have Gay and Lesbian Veterans, Too

nicrivera — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:16:28 -0000

As for hate crimes, I've made it clear many times on TMV that I oppose hate crime legislation as a violation of freedom of thought, speech and expression, though many have made strong arguments against me on that.

Exactly.

Some people here are trying to use the hate crimes legislation issue to bolster their arguments in favor of restricting the types of activities that gay and lesbian individuals should and should not be able to do. This is a complete red herring.

Like, tidbits, I have also argued time and time again against hate crimes legislation on the basis that such legislation criminalizes thought and expression. I personally have no problem with homosexuality. If others do, that's their problem. I have no desire to have the government force such individuals to accept homosexuality.

I have pointed out time and time again, that my belief that homosexual individuals ought to be able to live their lives as they wish so long as they are not infringing upon the lives, liberties, or properties of others. Since homosexuality, gay marriage, and gays serving in the military doesn't infringe on anyone else's lives, liberties, or property, I see no reason for there to be laws against such things.

This has absolutely nothing to do with trying to force others to accept homosexuality as being good or criminalizing anti-gay thoughts. All of this "gay agenda" rhetoric is just fear mongering. One cannot simply assume that just because some people support gays being allowed to marry or join the military, that they support every conceivable law that is thought to sympathetic to gays. This is blanket a generalization. People cannot keep using the hate crimes legislation issue as some kind of trump card to make arguments against positions that have nothing to do with hate crimes legislation.

Re: We Have Gay and Lesbian Veterans, Too

Doriancito — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:49:13 -0000

"The whole point of Dorian's post, as I understand it, was to point out that thousands of gay and lesbian individuals have served in the military in spite of our government's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, and further, that many of those gays and lesbian individuals have made sacrifices for their country, in spite of the fact that some of their own countrymen (and women) do not want them serving."

Thanks for your coments, nicrivera.

My post is intended, this Veterans Day, to thank gay and lesbian veterans for their service to our country, along with other veterans I have recognized and thanked in previous posts.

And, yes, part of my thanks to them is to do my small part in trying to ensure that those young men and women who in the future want to serve their country, and who happen to be homosexual, can do so with dignity and without the shame, humiliation and worse that present "Don't ask, Don't tell" legislation requires them to endure.

If some of our readers object to this, that is their prerogative. (Some are doing such in a rational, dignified manner, some are not. But that's their right, too) As it is my right to continue to espouse what I believe is right.

Thanks again,

Dorian

Re: We Have Gay and Lesbian Veterans, Too

nicrivera — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:15:00 -0000

Father Time,

You have mixed so many issues together (homosexuality, discrimination, rape, hate crimes) that it's almost impossible to have a conversation with you.

Whether you want to accept homosexuality as good or bad or moral or immoral or normal or abnormal is up to you. It seems pretty obvious that no one here is going to change your mind on that, and frankly, I'm less concerned about whatever personal beliefs people hold than I am about what people believe to be the role of government.

In a free society, people ought to have the right to life their lives as they wish so long as they are not infringing on the rights of others. People should be able to take part in whatever activities they wish, so long as they are not infringing upon the rights of others. Whether they do so openly or not is beside the point. It's a matter of respecting other people's rights.

If a homosexual person were to rape a heterosexual person, that would be wrong--not because the aggressor was homosexual--but because the aggressor raped another person. Whether such an act constitutes a hate crime or not is beside the point.

If a homosexual couple were to have sex on your front lawn, that would be wrong--not because there's anything wrong with homosexuality--but because that couple trespassed onto your property.

You say that you are talking about real harm, but I am not hearing anything in your arguments pointing out what is so harmful about homosexuality or about allowing homosexuality. I think the whole "homosexuality is harmful" argument is some trumped up argument made by people who are using the word "harm" in a manner that is inconsistent with its definition. No one is being "harmed" by homosexuality in and of itself. What I think is really happening is that some people are just really uncomfortable or repulsed about the idea of homosexuality. But that does not constitute harm.

The whole point of Dorian's post, as I understand it, was to point out that thousands of gay and lesbian individuals have served in the military in spite of our government's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, and further, that many of those gays and lesbian individuals have made sacrifices for their country, in spite of the fact that some of their own countrymen (and women) do not want them serving.

I gather from his post that Dorian does not support our government's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, which is in line with what I think. I think that law is based more on fear and misperceptions and very little on logic or rational thought. If the argument is that allowing gay and lesbian individuals serve in the military is going to harm the military in any way, I'd like to hear facts and data to support such an allegation and not simply opinions and hypothetical scenarios.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

PJBFan — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:21:16 -0000

No worries on the J and B. I just like to nip it in the bud when it happens, because it is confusing otherwise.

Onto your points, I see and note that economic libertarianism and social conservative are relatively inconsistent. I just distrust government to regulate anything but morality, and I believe they can only do that somewhat well because they are elected by community consensus. But that being said, let me make one other point not made above. I believe the comparison to war is inapposite because I believe that, in defensive wars, i.e. not Iraq, we have a right to hit military targets even if surrounded by millions of civilians. That is a tragedy, yes, but it is done in our self defense.

I do oppose the Iraq war, because I do not think it was necessary, and I think that the facts prove that, and that the facts prove that the war was very poorly run. Just my two cents though.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

nicrivera — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:19:56 -0000

I absolutely am economically libertarian, but I am incredibly socially conservative.

That sounds pretty consistent with how most conservatives would explain their political views. However, I wonder if your economically libertarian beliefs ever conflict with your socially conservative beliefs. The reason I ask is because economically libertarian beliefs tend to be very laissez faire, while socially conservative beliefs tend to be as far from laissez faire as one can get. Social conservatives tend to support government intervention in a number of issues that I tend to classify as the traditional values and law & order issues (i.e. laws against drug use, laws against pornography, laws against obscenity). Such laws would necessarily violate the concept of free market capitalism, which is essentially what economic libertarianism is all about.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

nicrivera — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:07:19 -0000

Just as an FYI, and not to be rude at all, because I don't mean to be, but, it's not PBJFan, but rather PJBFan. The PJB is for Patrick J. Buchanan, of whom I am a fan.

Darn! And here I was hoping that you were a peanut butter & jelly fan!

Anyway, sorry about the switching of the J and the B.

You, of course, are entitled to your views on abortion. I suppose I can agree with you that the individual civilians that are killed during war are not murder in the sense that they are not being deliberately targeted. But I still don't see how bombing a city filled with five million people (the overwhelming majority of which are civilians) is consistent with a pro-life position. But then again, as I recall, Pat Buchanan was one of the few well known conservatives that spoke out against the Iraq War, so if you're a fan of his, perhaps you also opposed the Iraq War?