Open thread
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
Hey where is my picture???? Wait, I am not dead. Come to think about it I am not a soldier either. I guess I am just a democrat. Oh well, Nevermind.
Rufus @ 1,
Get help.
Fucking asshole.
re 1 — Too bad all these decent men and women died for no good reason.
There’s still time for you to sign up. I think it would be very apropos for you to die for no reason.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler......ps%3F.html
What Does It Mean to ‘Support the Troops’?
“But relief at the return of loved ones and neighbors is one thing; pretending that their mission was somehow right and noble is another….”
Supporting the troops is letting their vote count on election day. That is one of the many reason why I vote republican.
5
Good point Dan. That is why I tried to vote too. If we are going to vote in a corrupt system(KCRE), the least we republican dogs can do is expose it. roof roof
Thanksgiving came early, as the several people I know who’ve been serving in Iraq aren’t on that list. For that, I’m very thankful.
Rufus @ 5 and 6,
The soldiers who don’t get to vote are the ones Bush sends to their deaths.
In case any right wingers are confused, the people in the picture are called heroes.
@5 “Supporting the troops is letting their vote count on election day.”
I agree 100% and that’s why we need a Democratic president who will appoint U.S. Attorneys who will prosecute Karl Rove, Tim Griffin, and every other Republican operative who committed felonies in carrying out the RNC’s illegal and racist caging operations to deny soldiers their right to vote. http://tinyurl.com/jv9nf
This is what war costs: These brave soldiers will not get older; they will not raise children; they will not have grandchildren. They are a lost generation. Now ask yourself if Bush’s recreational war is worth it.
For the rest of my life, I will vote 100% Democratic. I no longer have any respect whatsoever for Republicans.
It might look partisan, but it isn’t:
–John W. Dean, Broken Government
These are former Republicans–members of Nixon’s White House. And they can’t stomach what the current crop of Republicans have done to the Republic from which they draw their name.
What will it take for conservatives to disavow these rascals?
Most real Conservatives have left the Republican party. All that’s left are the cheerleaders, water-carriers, and those who are either too naive or too busy counting their blood money to do so. That’s why I’ve said the R’s aren’t a Conservative party before. They no longer represent that set of values. The values of Republicanism are greed and graft, and the willingness to sacrifice or even destroy others, even their own allies, to either advance or protect themselves or their agendas.
time to unite behind hilary?
it is all on the table in 2008 – democracy and the fate of the nation is at stake
the total turn to facism can be interrupted, but only with a democrat congress and a democrat in the white house
we are germany in 1934
This cover is so telling and powerful – the real cost of war mongering. Now, magnify by 100 which cost includes the Iraqi people, men, women and children.
Congrats to the Olympian. USA in two wars, thinking about many others.
Dear God ….
# 13 — I’ve got the Dean book. I need to read it.
@14 Of course they’re not a conservative party. The GOP has been totally preempted by the neocons, and neocons draw their inspiration from Leo Strauss and Trotsky. Talk about historical irony — the anti-communist party has turned into a bunch of fucking commies.
At DL the other night, one of our friends from Sound Transit told me RTID/ST2 will cost me about $125 a year. That, by itself, is an unpleasant tax burden on a retiree on a fixed income who will derive no benefit whatsoever from anything this money will build … buuuuut … is he lowballing the actual cost?
An article in today’s fishwrapper makes it appear so. According to the daily howler, RTID/ST2 will actually cost $38 billion over 20 years. http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....n11m0.html
If you figure there’s about a million households in the area that will pay these taxes, that works out to roughly $38,000 per household divided by 20 years is $1,900 per household per year, not $125. Even if you stretch the payments out to 50 years, a popular mortgage lending technique used for selling overpriced homes to suckers who can’t afford them, you’re still looking at $760 a year before figuring in the additional interest costs.
So — $125 a year isn’t enough close. Any way you figure, it’s nowhere in the ballpark. That must be the loss-leader teaser rate to get us to bite.
Well, I know wilted lettuce when I see it, and I ain’t biting.
Darryl says:
Rufus @ 5 and 6,
The soldiers who don’t get to vote are the ones Bush sends to their deaths.
You are streaching the truth a little? Even the Dead gets to vote in King County. Had I been deployed when King County was counting my vote would never have been counted. Yes it is true that our vote does not get counted in the State of Washington unless we hold a gunt to their heads.
Gunt = Gun
Who was the great American General that made this statement?
Congress is usually void of leadership. I don’t know that Congress will ever have any leadership because they are always running for reelection. But don’t worry about Congress. Just remember we have to live with them. Trying to get reelected every two years breed’s great jumpers and not great leaders. Congressmen and senators are quick to jump on a horse and ride off in a direction they think the people might be going. If a Congressman jumps on a horse going in the wrong direction, he will change horses in a hurry and try to jump at the head of the parade going in the same other direction. Great leaders will always lead. A great leader will never try to jump up to the head of a convoy of troops or even public citizens.
Klake @ 20,
“You are streaching the truth a little?”
No.
“Even the Dead gets to vote in King County.”
No…they don’t.
“Had I been deployed when King County was counting my vote would never have been counted.”
That would have been your own fucking fault. You have to know how to use a pencil and read to succeed with absentee ballots.
“Yes it is true that our vote does not get counted in the State of Washington unless we hold a gunt to their heads.”
No. But, go ahead and try it. Let us know how that works for ya.
Some Officers ask this same General this question, “What do you mean by Country General?”
Good question! I don’t know what a Philadelphia lawyer might say, but I know what I mean by Country. It is the Constitution! Just the greatest document ever written by man according to an English Prime Minister. You know why we serve the Constitution. Simple! Recall what you said when you got your first commission or got promotion. You take an oath to God to support the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. We are fighting for our Constitution. We are not fighting for any man, president, senator, congressman nor potentate. This is what I mean by Country. Does this answer your question?
Now you know why those soldiers did not die for nothing. Those of you who are not willing to defend this nation will get the honor to die more than a thousand deaths.
By the way who was the General that made the statement above?
Bullshit & Gorebasms: http://business.timesonline.co.....633838.ece
Bullshit & Body Counts: The census of illegal aliens in the US may be closer to 30 million than to the conservative default estimate of 12 million used by liberals. We don’t know because illegals, by definition, don’t tell, and because the Census Bureau doesn’t ask. Think about the consequences of this phantom count on our understanding of poverty rates, income disparities, crime, and health care. All these indicators are probably skewed and screwed by progressive bean counters (no racist pun intended) who pump their agendas by shifting illegals into and out of their calculus.
Boots on the Ground: I believed by April Fools’ Day 2003 that the George Bush/Dan Savage war of liberation in Iraq had already failed the first test of a Good War: We couldn’t spin it as a win. Suspicions confirmed in 2004 when somebody placed 500 pairs of empty combat boots on a piece of pavement to represent our loss or to represent dying for a mistake.
Bullshit Squared: Historian Jay Winik was on NPR’s Weekend Edition last Saturday. Scott “Giggles” Simon introduced Winik as the “author” of a bestseller, April 1865. I read April 1865 back in the day and was impressed: impressed first by how bad it was and impressed next by how familiar it was. My sense of awful familiarity became strong as I read about Andrew Johnson’s shaky VP inauguration. Not only was the episode familiar, particularly to us geeks, but Winik’s words used to describe it were familiar. Went back to one of heavy Paul Johnson’s overweight synthetic histories, published years before Winik, and there were Winik’s words, almost unchanged by Jay. Then big hunks of Johnson’s text matched up with Winik, almost word for word. And so did text from the companion volume to Ken Burns’ Civil War series.
Question for Bugs Rabbit: Is/was Winik a mere plagiarist, or was he signing on to your standard of Fair-Use plagiarism? If he’s a Fair User, should he cite in his endnotes the source of his fairly used text? Inquiring minds … etc.
“Even the Dead gets to vote in King County.”
No…they don’t.
I wholeheartedly disagree!!! If I can almost vote the dead are certainly voting. roof roof
Rufus @ 26,
I suspect you can’t vote. The Washington State Constitution, Article VI, Section 3, says:
@25…GWB…
You as much as accuse Jay Winik of plagiarism, yet I find nothing in a Google search of his name together with those of Paul Johnson and Ken Burns that validate what you say.
I’ve read April, 1865, and I thought it was a very good book that explored many interesting facets of the end of the Civil War and the immediate issues that faced both North and South. Frankly, I thought the book had a lot to say to us today
Can you be specific as to what Winik cribbed from Johnson or Burns? Plagiarism is as serious a charge that can be leveled against a writer or scholar. So…what specific evidence will you proffer?
In the meantime, I think I’ll re-read Confederates in the Attic by Tony Horwitz, which also has a lot to say about how the Civil War still touches us all today.
September 17, 1862, the bloodiest day in American history, saw over 3,600 Americans killed and over 17,000 wounded at the Battle of Antietam. Yet, this was still early in the war, and scores of battles still would be fought bring bitter grief and sorrow to countless thousands of American families.
Freedom wasn’t free then, nor is it free now.
I am very interested in hearing your specific evidence against Jay Winik.
The Piper
Freedom wasn’t free then, nor is it free now.
Well, you can ask Graeme Frost if he thinks freedom comes for free. Or is freedom only free when you don’t exercise it?
@29…DJ…
Leave us not be vapid…
Freedom is never free; it belongs only to those who do exercise it and, through vigilence and sacrifice, maintain it.
It’s up to adults to fight freedom’s battles, not send children out because the adults are either to cowardly or haven’t got the ammunition to fight themselves.
Politcs isn’t child’s play, and sending children out to do political combat in the hope that everyone will think the poor tyke off limits is naive on the part of the purported adults and pretty damn cruel to the kid.
If anyone thinks that they have a right to go out and say stuff then not be subject to criticism or complaint from those thow disagree, then they ought to keep their dumb mouths shut!
If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I love how these pithy responsibility and reality statements came from Democratic President Harry Truman. Give ’em Hell, Harry! And you can bet ol’ Harry would be giving Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi Hell and Hell again for their spineless sending of a child to do adult battle.
Then Harry would rip into the kid’s parents for trying to have it both ways. Known as a parent who wouldn’t tolerate anyone messing with his child, Harry, during his presidency, once offered to poke a music critic in the nose after he wrote an unflattering review of Margaret Truman’s, Harry’s daughter, debut as a concert pianist.
Her musical and artistic proficiency aside, the point is that Harry saw his first responsibility as that of a father, and he was going to take care of his daughter no matter what!
Too bad Graeme Frost’s daddy didn’t learn from Harry. Nor, apparently, Graeme’s grand-daddy,owner of a vintage 56 T-Bird that could have been sold for plenty of $$$ to pay for health insurance for his grandkids.
Now, we can play he said, she said, they said, we said all day and night, but the simple fact is that as a parent, I know that I would have sold everything I owned, taken a second job, and gotten help from family in order to get the medical care any kid of mine needed. What I wouldn’t do, is look to the government and become someone else’s responsibility.
Yeah, freedom isn’t free, and there is no such thing as a free lunch, either.
The Piper
Wow, did you step in that one, Piper.
Leave us not be vapid…
Of course not. Better to be a flaming hypocrite who attacks the messenger, because one is unable to respond appropriately to the message. Did Democrats publish the address of any of the snowflake babies that Bush gathered around himself when he vetoed stem cell research? ‘Course not.
There are some prices that one does not ask people to pay for the mere exercise of their freedom. Republicans, in their rebid furor to rule, rather than actually govern, have long since forgotten this maxim of civility.
Really, you should read Dean’s Broken Government. It’s a real eye-opener. Puts the whole Graeme Foster thing into perspective.
Eratta “rebid” should be “rabid”.
@31…JD…
John Dean is one of the dirtiest scumbags to have ever oozed his way up from a clogged toilet.
It was a cheap theatric trick intended to make everyone cry WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH because a kid said something.
The “adults” (I use the term with reservation) who planned the whole silly charade and the kid’s parents ought to be ashamed of themselves for allowing him to be put on display like that. They have neither shame nor courage.
And guess what: in this society today, when you interject yourself – or have someone interject you – into public debate, you lose much of your so-called “privacy.” Ask Larry Craig.
If you want to participate in the public debate over an issue, you have to be prepared to participate all the way. Having been personally outed on HA, I know whereof I speak.
The Piper
Piper,
John Dean is one of the dirtiest scumbags to have ever oozed his way up from a clogged toilet.
Which would put him in a rather unique position to both recognize the sewage that has permeated our government over the past six years and to be able to expose that sewage for what it is.
It was a cheap theatric trick intended to make everyone cry
That doesn’t justify the attack on the kid or even on his family. If that’s the point, then the target of the attack should have been the Democratic leadership.
And guess what: in this society today, when you interject yourself – or have someone interject you – into public debate, you lose much of your so-called “privacy.”
What “public debate” are you talking about? There is no “public debate,” because you twits won’t engage in one. Have you seen Michelle Malkin’s chicken little impersonation? It shouldn’t be at all hard to find.
If there actually were a public debate then there would be absolutely no need to smear a 12 year old, brain-damaged kid and his family.
What’s really cute is, after saying, “Let us not be vapid…” you’ve done nothing but be vapid.
Piper Scott,
“If you want to participate in the public debate over an issue, you have to be prepared to participate all the way.”
No…this is certainly not true. There are numerous highly influential bloggers (and other authors) who are anonymous. There is no logical reason why one cannot be completely anonymous, yet still have important and influential ideas.
“Having been personally outed on HA, I know whereof I speak.”
If somebody “outed you,” then you were sloppy with your own information.
The fact is, nobody gives a shit about your real identity.
A corollary of my first paragraph is that, just because people know one’s identity, it doesn’t make one’s ideas either important or influential.
It’s up to adults to fight freedom’s battles, not send children out because the adults are either to cowardly or haven’t got the ammunition to fight themselves.
He wasn’t sent to “battle.” He told of his experience in a two minute radio address. Here are his entire remarks:
“Hi, my name is Graeme Frost. I’m 12 years old and I live in Baltimore, Maryland. Most kids my age probably haven’t heard of CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program. But I know all about it, because if it weren’t for CHIP, I might not be here today.
“CHIP is a law the government made to help families like mine afford healthcare for their kids. Three years ago, my family was in a really bad car accident. My younger sister Gemma and I were both hurt. I was in a coma for a week and couldn’t eat or stand up or even talk at first. My sister was even worse. I was in the hospital for five-and-a-half months and I needed a big surgery. For a long time after that, I had to go to physical therapy after school to get stronger. But even though I was hurt badly, I was really lucky. My sister and I both were.
“My parents work really hard and always make sure my sister and I have everything we need, but the hospital bills were huge. We got the help we needed because we had health insurance for us through the CHIP program.
“But there are millions of kids out there who don’t have CHIP, and they wouldn’t get the care that my sister and I did if they got hurt. Their parents might have to sell their cars or their houses, or they might not be able to pay for hospital bills at all.
“Now I’m back to school. One of my vocal chords is paralyzed so I don’t talk the same way I used to. And I can’t walk or run as fast as I did. The doctors say I can’t play football any more, but I might still be able to be a coach. I’m just happy to be back with my friends.
“I don’t know why President Bush wants to stop kids who really need help from getting CHIP. All I know is I have some really good doctors. They took great care of me when I was sick, and I’m glad I could see them because of the Children’s Health Program.
“I just hope the President will listen to my story and help other kids to be as lucky as me. This is Graeme Frost, and this has been the Weekly Democratic Radio address. Thanks for listening.”
http://www.democrats.org/a/200.....ar-old.php
Instead of addressing what Frost said, they, and now you, Piper, have attacked him and his family for saying it. That’s what makes them scum, and that’s what makes you scum.
@36…ATJ…
Sorry…you can’t jump into the swimming pool of debate on an issue, align yourself with a political party, go on TV and radio to advocate the position of that party, then not expect to be held accountable for both what you say and that you’re saying it.
I don’t fault the kid; I likewise don’t fault kids who get suckered into strapping explosives to their bodies who then get remote-control detonated as they wander through some marketplace in Iraq.
I fault the craven adults who either stage managed it or allowed it to happen.
Here’s how I see the kid’s parents: selfish. They made choices and opted to live a certain lifestyle. Now, when admittedly tragic circumstances happen to their kids, they don’t want to step up to the parenting plate, give up their lifestyle, and take care of their children. They want the government to do it, by way of taxpayers Joe and Jane Doakes who are then less able to care for their own children due to the drain placed upon them by having to pay taxes to cover the irresponsibility of other parents.
Dubya’s veto of the S-CHIP legislation wasn’t to kill it, it was in opposition of the bloated nature of it that was over and above the INCREASED funding he had originally proposed.
Cynical, ethically void creatures they are, leading Democratic strategists set this whole thing up as merely a political stunt: refuse to pass legislation that would be signed, instead send a bloated bill to the White House that was guaranteed to be vetoed, see it vetoed, shove some poor kid with a sad story into the public spotlight, hide behind the kid like the slimey cowards they are, then bitch, moan and groan how BUSH IS KILLING OUR BABIES!!! BUSH WANTS TO MURDER OUR BABIES!!! BUSH IS WORSE THAN HEROD!!! BUSH IS SATAN INCARNATE!!! BUSH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR STUPID INABILITY TO GET ANYTHING DONE!!!
Might fool a six-year-old, but not many others.
The Piper
@36…ATJ…
Sorry…you can’t jump into the swimming pool of debate on an issue, align yourself with a political party, go on TV and radio to advocate the position of that party, then not expect to be held accountable for both what you say and that you’re saying it.
I don’t fault the kid; I likewise don’t fault kids who get suckered into strapping explosives to their bodies who then get remote-control detonated as they wander through some marketplace in Iraq.
I fault the craven adults who either stage managed it or allowed it to happen.
Here’s how I see the kid’s parents: selfish. They made choices and opted to live a certain lifestyle. Now, when admittedly tragic circumstances happen to their kids, they don’t want to step up to the parenting plate, give up their lifestyle, and take care of their children. They want the government to do it, by way of taxpayers Joe and Jane Doakes who are then less able to care for their own children due to the drain placed upon them by having to pay taxes to cover the irresponsibility of other parents.
Dubya’s veto of the S-CHIP legislation wasn’t to kill it, it was in opposition of the bloated nature of it that was over and above the INCREASED funding he had originally proposed.
Cynical, ethically void creatures they are, leading Democratic strategists set this whole thing up as merely a political stunt: refuse to pass legislation that would be signed, instead send a bloated bill to the White House that was guaranteed to be vetoed, see it vetoed, shove some poor kid with a sad story into the public spotlight, hide behind the kid like the slimey cowards they are, then bitch, moan and groan how BUSH IS KILLING OUR BABIES!!! BUSH WANTS TO MURDER OUR BABIES!!! BUSH IS WORSE THAN HEROD!!! BUSH IS SATAN INCARNATE!!! BUSH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR STUPID INABILITY TO GET ANYTHING DONE!!!
Might fool a six-year-old, but not many others.
The Piper
@36…ATJ…
Sorry…you can’t jump into the swimming pool of debate on an issue, align yourself with a political party, go on TV and radio to advocate the position of that party, then not expect to be held accountable for both what you say and that you’re saying it.
I don’t fault the kid; I likewise don’t fault kids who get suckered into strapping explosives to their bodies who then get remote-control detonated as they wander through some marketplace in Iraq.
I fault the craven adults who either stage managed it or allowed it to happen.
Here’s how I see the kid’s parents: selfish. They made choices and opted to live a certain lifestyle. Now, when admittedly tragic circumstances happen to their kids, they don’t want to step up to the parenting plate, give up their lifestyle, and take care of their children. They want the government to do it, by way of taxpayers Joe and Jane Doakes who are then less able to care for their own children due to the drain placed upon them by having to pay taxes to cover the irresponsibility of other parents.
Dubya’s veto of the S-CHIP legislation wasn’t to kill it, it was in opposition of the bloated nature of it that was over and above the INCREASED funding he had originally proposed.
Cynical, ethically void creatures they are, leading Democratic strategists set this whole thing up as merely a political stunt: refuse to pass legislation that would be signed, instead send a bloated bill to the White House that was guaranteed to be vetoed, see it vetoed, shove some poor kid with a sad story into the public spotlight, hide behind the kid like the slimey cowards they are, then bitch, moan and groan how BUSH IS KILLING OUR BABIES!!! BUSH WANTS TO MURDER OUR BABIES!!! BUSH IS WORSE THAN HEROD!!! BUSH IS SATAN INCARNATE!!! BUSH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR STUPID INABILITY TO GET ANYTHING DONE!!!
Might fool a six-year-old, but not many others.
The Piper
Piper,
I’m getting the impression that you didn’t read what I wrote.
Here’s how I see the kid’s parents: selfish. They made choices and opted to live a certain lifestyle.
They *chose* to make too much money to qualify for medicaid and not enough for private insurance?
Here are some of the choices they made:
To buy a run-down home in a dangerous part of town.
To work hard and put food on the table.
To buy a business rental property in a rough part of town.
To send their kids to the best schools they could and take advantage of scholarships available to them.
To take advantage of the CHIP program that was designed to help people exactly like them.
To tell the country that the CHIP program had helped them avoid financial disaster and to advocate expanding the program to help others like them.
Yep, sounds like a couple of people who just want to live the high life and mooch off the efforts of others.
Again, you didn’t address the Frosts’ arguments; you just want to shut them up.
But let’s get down to brass tacks: should his parents have sold their house and their rental property in order to pay for private insurance?
@40…ATJ…
You said it yourself: sell the property and buy the insurance if that’s what’s necessary. Where is it written that the government or anyone outside my own family is obligated to underwrite my life?
And the kid’s Grandpa could have sold that G-D ’56 T-Bird.
The Piper
So you oppose the SCHIP program?
@42…ATJ…
Philosophically, as a pro-life libertarian, I search in vain in the Constitution for anything that authorizes the federal government to be your nanny.
Practically, I recognize that the framework established by the Founders has been screwed up beyond recognition, and we’re not likely to return to the federal system they envisioned, much to the consternation of Ron Paul, et al.
I suppose my answer to your question depends upon whether you’re still beating your wife. You seek to lay a clumsy, ham-fisted trap, and I simply refuse to play!
The Piper
I suppose my answer to your question depends upon whether you’re still beating your wife. You seek to lay a clumsy, ham-fisted trap, and I simply refuse to play!
So, if I ask you a straight-forward question about whether you support or oppose the program we’ve been discussing, you think that’s a trap? Why is that?
I’m disappointed to see “pro-life libertarians” are so so unwilling to engage in policy discussions. I was under the impression that libertarians believed discussion to be a good thing – the whole John Stuart Mill thing. Was I mistaken or are you not really a libertarian?
@44…ATJ…
I don’t generally engage in a battle of wits with those who come to the fray both unarmed and patethetically unqualified.
Very truly yours,
The Piper
Well, that’s very disappointing. I thought we were trying to have a civil conversation. Now I see that only one of of us had that as a goal.
‘Tis a pity that you turned out to be as cowardly as Malkin, but I suppose it’s not surprising.
ATJ,
Even more fascinating is how just about every discussion of welfare policies with wingnuts degenerates into an attempt to rehash the Hamilton-Madison debates over the precise meaning of the “general welfare” clause. I even had one wingnut over on (u)SP who managed to attribute the arguments in reverse.
Hamilton has already won the debate, and the precise meaning of “general welfare” is one we get to hash out, as we play our role in “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” on a policy-by-policy basis. Invoking the terms of the now ancient Hamilton-Madison debate is little more than a disingenuous ploy designed to avoid having to participate in the policy debate.
I even had one wingnut over on (u)SP who managed to attribute the arguments in reverse.
Well, that’s something I’ve noticed about the SCHIP program; it’s very confusing to them. It seems to have turned them all pro-choice. ;-)
Invoking the terms of the now ancient Hamilton-Madison debate is little more than a disingenuous ploy designed to avoid having to participate in the policy debate.
You’re probably right, as you can see from the above discussion. I asked him point-blank whether he supports or opposes the program, and he described it as a “trap.”
@47…DJ…
Ah! A confessed visitor to Sound Politics! Score one for you in your willingness to go to the other side and mix it up. In that, you have my respect.
My objection isn’t rooted in the Hamilton versus Madison views of government. Admittedly, Hamilton was an interventionist, seeing for a strong central government a greater role than did Madison and his intellectual and political godfather, Thomas Jefferson.
Yet I question whether either wouldn’t be absolutely astounded and amazed at the gargantuan behemoth that is now the federal government.
Roles and functions they no doubt assumed would be left to the states or not subjec to any government whatsoever are now the multi-billion dollar business of the feds.
I remember a few years ago the huge senatorial fight over cable TV rates…The United States Senate vehemently debating into the wee hours of the night on the conscionability of raising rates for basic cable a couple bucks a month! Such as this are the great stories of our nation and democracy wrought!
That government is the entity least qualified and least capable of doing a lot of this stuff both goes without saying and is beside the point.
What is the point, however, is that organic nature of the federal government was never intended to be either so intrusive or expensive; it was intended not to be the welfare state we know it as today, the “general welfare” clause of the Preamble to the Constitution notwithstanding.
Read the whole thing in totality, and keep in mind what it says about liberty and common defense and stuff like that.
The Piper
Piper, paid @ #28: Will post my side-by-sides (top/bottoms, actually) el quicko. Watch this space.
Pigs fly! NPR speaks truth! http://www.npr.org/templates/s.....d=15178883
Michael “Fatso” Moore acolytes hold up or throw up Medicare as a model of how very spiffing fine socialized Hillary Care will be for you & me. Compared to evil insurance companies, Medicare is a paragon of economic efficiency … over (X) billion served, with administrative overhead of only 2%.
NPR tells us why. It’s because Medicare’s administrative function is pumping out checks, often to phony suppliers of phony medical equipment and services. Almost no Medicare dollars are spent on the prevention, detection, or prosecution of fraud. The estimated count and amount? About $70 billion a year expended on fakes. Now I know that’s chump change, compared to Iraq, but extended over Medicare’s tenure, $70 billion/year starts to look like real money.
Some Officers ask this same General this question, “What do you mean by Country General?”
Good question! I don’t know what a Philadelphia lawyer might say, but I know what I mean by Country. It is the Constitution! Just the greatest document ever written by man according to an English Prime Minister. You know why we serve the Constitution. Simple! Recall what you said when you got your first commission or got promotion. You take an oath to God to support the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. We are fighting for our Constitution. We are not fighting for any man, president, senator, congressman nor potentate. This is what I mean by Country. Does this answer your question?
Now you know why those soldiers did not die for nothing. Those of you who are not willing to defend this nation will get the honor to die more than a thousand deaths.
By the way who was the General that made the statement above?
General George S Patton III
Who was the great American General that made this statement?
Congress is usually void of leadership. I don’t know that Congress will ever have any leadership because they are always running for reelection. But don’t worry about Congress. Just remember we have to live with them. Trying to get reelected every two years breed’s great jumpers and not great leaders. Congressmen and senators are quick to jump on a horse and ride off in a direction they think the people might be going. If a Congressman jumps on a horse going in the wrong direction, he will change horses in a hurry and try to jump at the head of the parade going in the same other direction. Great leaders will always lead. A great leader will never try to jump up to the head of a convoy of troops or even public citizens.
General George S Patton III
Historian and plagiarist Doris Kearns Goodwin said that Jay Winik, author of April 1865: The Month That Saved America, is a “master storyteller.” President George Bush, in the aftermath of September 2001, was prominently reading April 1865. A reviewer at Webdesk.com wrote that Winik’s book is “provocative, bold, exquisitely rendered, and stunningly original …”
Master story teller? Stunningly original? It isn’t necessarily so.
In April 1865 Dr. Winik adopted “the widespread practice of a collective reference” and, “in the interest of readability,” did not cite every quotation. Although he credited A History of the American People by Paul Johnson as a distinguished work “employed throughout this study,” Dr. Winik failed to bracket quotations from Johnson in quote marks, and he gave Paul Johnson no credit that I can find for writing Winik’s commentary about Vice President Andrew Johnson.
Much of Dr. Winik’s material about other persons and events was taken, without quotation marks or attribution (that I can find: his endnotes are confusing,) from The Civil War: An Illustrated History by Geoffrey C. Ward, with Ric Burns and Ken Burns. Note the following comparisons, and sorry about the shouting CAPS. I have bad eyes and bad typing; upper-case helps me keep my place:
Paul Johnson: “HE WAS BORN IN RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA. HIS BACKGROUND WAS MODEST, NOT TO SAY POOR. HE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN ENTIRELY SELF-EDUCATED.” (Page 499, for this section)
Jay Winik: “BORN IN RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA, ANDREW JOHNSON WAS,LIKE LINCOLN, FROM DEEPLY HUMBLE ORIGINS. ALSO LIKE LINCOLN, HE WAS ALMOST ENTIRELY SELF-EDUCATED.” (Pages 268 – 270, for this section)
Johnson: “AT THIRTEEN HE WAS APPRENTICED TO A TAILOR BUT RAN AWAY FROM HIS CRUEL MASTER …”
Winik: “… AND AT THE TENDER AGE OF THIRTEEN, JOHNSON WAS APPRENTICED TO A TAILOR … CHAFING AT THE CRUELTIES OF HIS MASTER, HE RAN AWAY …”
Johnson: “HE WAS A TYPICAL JACKSONIAN DEMOCRAT …”
Winik: “AS A FIERCE JACKSONIAN DEMOCRAT …”
Johnson: “HE WAS A BRILLIANT SPEAKER, BUT CRUDE IN SOME WAYS, WITH A VILE TEMPER. AND HE DRANK.”
Winik: “… HE COULD ALSO BE A BRILLIANT SPEAKER … UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO SHED EITHER HIS VILE TEMPER OR THE HABITS OF HIS PLEBIAN UPBRINGING. … AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, JOHNSON DRANK.”
Johnson: “… BOASTING OF HIS PLEBIAN ORIGINS AND REMINDING THE ASSEMBLED DIGNITARIES FROM THE SUPREME COURT AND THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS, ‘WITH ALL YOUR FINE FEATHERS AND GEWGAWS,’ THAT THEY WERE BUT ‘CREATURES OF THE PEOPLE.'”
Winik: “… SHOUTING ABOUT HIS HUMBLE ORIGINS AND LECTURING THE ASSEMBLED DIGNITARIES FROM THE SUPREME COURT AND THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS (‘WITH ALL YOUR FINE FEATHERS AND GEW-GAWS’) THAT THEY WERE MERELY ‘CREATURES OF THE PEOPLE.'”
Johnson: “LINCOLN WAS DISGUSTED AND TOLD THE PARADE
MARSHAL, ‘DO NOT LET JOHNSON SPEAK OUTSIDE.'”
Winik: “LINCOLN WAS ALSO DISMAYED, PROMPTLY ORDERING A
PARADE MARSHAL, ‘DO NOT LET JOHNSON SPEAK OUTSIDE!'”
Geoffrey Ward: “LIKE ABRAHAM LINCOLN, JEFFERSON DAVIS WAS BORN IN A KENTUCKY LOG CABIN, THE SON OF A FARMER. BUT DAVIS’S FATHER SOON MOVED HIS FAMILY TO THE MISSISSIPPI COTTON KINGDOM, AND PROSPERED.”
(PAGE 23)
Jay Winik: “LIKE ABE LINCOLN, DAVIS WAS BORN IN A KENTUCKY LOG CABIN … HIS FATHER SOON MOVED HIS FAMILY TO THE MISSISSIPPI COTTON KINGDOM AND PROSPERED.” (PAGE 324)
Ward: “… THEN TO WEST POINT, WHERE HE GRADUATED TWENTY-THIRD IN A CLASS OF TWENTY-THREE. (Page 23)
Winik: “… DAVIS WENT TO WEST POINT, WHERE HE GRADUATED TWENTY-THIRD IN A CLASS OF THIRTY-THREE. (Page 325)
Ward: “HIS WIFE DIED THREE MONTHS LATER, AND FOR TEN LONELY YEARS HE LIVED AS A PLANTER AT BRIERFIELD, A PLANTATION NEAR VICKSBURG, MISSISSIPPI, GIVEN TO HIM BY HIS ELDER BROTHER.” (Page 23)
Winik: “BUT HIS BELOVED WIFE DIED THREE MONTHS LATER … FOR EIGHT LONELY YEARS HE LIVED IN MORBID SECLUSION AS A PLANTER AT BRIERFIELD, A MODEST 800-ACRE PLANTATION NEAR VICKSBURG, MISSISSIPPI, LENT TO HIM BY HIS OLDER BROTHER, JOSEPH.” (Page 325)
Ward: “MARY (CHESNUT) MANAGED TO MAKE A LITTLE MONEY SELLING BUTTER AND EGGS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH HER FAITHFUL MAID …”
(Page 407)
Winik: “… REDUCED TO SELLING BUTTER AND EGGS WITH HER FAITHFUL MAID TO EARN A LITTLE MONEY …” (Page 352)
Ward: “AT CLEVELAND, NO PUBLIC BUILDING WAS THOUGHT BIG ENOUGH TO HOLD THE EXPECTED CROWDS AND AN OUTDOOR PAVILION WAS SET UP THROUGH WHICH TEN THOUSAND MOURNERS PASSED EVERY HOUR …” (Pages 387 – 391)
Winik: “… TO CLEVELAND, WHERE A SPECIAL OUTDOOR PAVILION WAS SET UP … THROUGH WHICH 10,000 MOURNERS PASSED EACH HOUR …” (Page 358)
Ward: “… SHERMAN ONCE CALLED NATHAN BEDFORD FORREST ‘THE MOST REMARKABLE MAN OUR CIVIL WAR HAS PRODUCED ON EITHER SIDE.’ BUT THAT DID NOT PREVENT HIM FROM DEMANDING THAT FORREST BE ‘HUNTED DOWN AND KILLED …'” (Page 346)
Winik: “… SHERMAN HIMSELF ONCE PRAISED FORREST AS ‘THE MOST REMARKABLE MAN OUR CIVIL WAR HAS PRODUCED ON EITHER SIDE’ … AND DEMANDEDTHAT FORREST BE ‘HUNTED DOWN AND KILLED …'” (Pages 274 – 275)
Ward: “… SHOT HIM AT POINT-BLANK RANGE, FORREST HELD HIS STRUGGLING ATTACKER WITH ONE HAND, PICKED UP A PENKNIFE WITH THE OTHER, UNCLASPED IT WITH HIS TEETH AND STABBED HIM. ‘NO DAMNED MAN KILLS ME AND LIVES,’ HE SAID. THE HAPLESS MAN STAGGERED ACROSS THE STREET AND DIED. FORREST WAS BACK IN THE SADDLE THIRTEEN DAYS LATER.” (Page 346)
Winik: “STRUCK AT POINT-BLANK RANGE, A REELING FORREST
REACHED FOR A PENKNIFE WITH ONE HAND, GRASPED HIS ASSAILANT WITH THE OTHER, AND PROCEEDED TO UNCLASP THE KNIFE WITH HIS TEETH AND STAB HIM. … “NO DAMNED MAN SHALL KILL ME AND LIVE!’ BUT IT WAS THE UNLUCKY SOLDIER WHO STUMBLED ACROSS THE STREET AND LATER DIED; FORREST WAS BACK IN THE SADDLE THIRTEEN DAYS LATER.” (Page 277)
Ward: “HE FOUGHT, HE SAID, ‘BY EAR,’ AND PROVED ABLE TO ANTICIPATE HIS ENEMY’S MOVEMENTS WITH UNCANNY PRECISION.” (Page 346)
Winik: “… HE FOUGHT, HE SAID, ‘BY EAR,’ AND PROVED ABLE TO ANTICIPATE HIS ENEMY’S EVERY ACTION WITH UNERRING ACCURACY.” (Page 277)
(Dr. Winik has an unerring tendency to use useless modifiers, such as ‘unerring,’ and to make absurd statements such as “anticipate his enemy’s every action with unerring accuracy.” Note below that Forrest, although uncanny and precise, was not unerringly accurate.)
Ward: “HE IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN SURPRISED ONLY ONCE, AT PARKER’S CROSSROAD, TENNESSEE …” (Page 346)
Winik: “THE UNION MANAGED TO SURPRISE HIM – ONCE – AT
PARKER’S CROSSROAD IN TENNESSEE.” (Page 279)
Ward: “… AFTER A DARING RAID ON GRANT’S LINES, HE WAS FIGHTING HIS WAY THROUGH THE UNION FORCE IN FRONT OF HIM WHEN HE WAS UNEXPECTEDLY HIT FROM BEHIND. HIS FLUSTERED STAFF ASKED WHAT THEY WERE TO DO. ‘SPLIT IN TWO,’ FORREST SAID, ‘AND CHARGE BOTH WAYS.'”
(Page 346)
Winik: “…HE HAD JUST MADE A DARING RAID ON GRANT’S LINES AND WAS BLASTING HIS WAY THROUGH THE FEDERALS IN FRONT OF HIM WHEN HE WAS UNEXPECTEDLY STRUCK FROM BEHIND. A PANICKED STAFF AIDE SHOUTED OUT FOR ORDERS. ‘SPLIT IN TWO,’ FORREST BELLOWED, ‘AND CHARGE BOTH WAYS.'” (Page 279)
References cited are from Winik (HarperCollins, 2001), Johnson (HarperPerennial, 1998), and Ward (Knopf,1990.)
Piper,
First, I beg to differ on whether or not your position resembles that of Madison in the debate. You might want to study a bit more history than the stuff you find in Freeper web sites. To say that your position lies outside the terms of that debate is rather like saying the grass isn’t green, because it’s blue.
Second, I think both Hamliton and Madison would also be completely amazed at the rapidity with which communication and travel happens in today’s world. Madison’s side of the debate was predicated on the inability of the Federal government to ascertain sufficient information as to make a reasonably well-informed decision on such matters.
However, regardless of what you and I might think of their views given changes in society and technology since their days, our speculation is really quite irrelevant.
Lastly:
Actually, I’ve done a tad bit more than just read the whole thing. I took two courses in Constitutional Law in college. And, as a matter of fact, the particular Supreme Court decisions that cemented the debate in Hamilton’s favor were not based on the language of the preamble. You might want to do a web search on the phrase “The switch in time that saved nine.”
Whether or not you happen to agree with those decisions is as irrelevant as our speculation about what Hamilton and Madison might have thought if they knew about today’s society. The debate has already been decided by the Supreme Court, and Hamliton has prevailed. You can either operate within that framework, and engage the debate on a policy-by-policy basis, or you can stick your fingers in your ears. Your choice.
Pigs fly! NPR speaks truth!
http://www.npr.org/templates/s.....d=15178883
Michael “Fatso” Moore acolytes hold up or throw up Medicare as a model of how very spiffing fine socialized Hillary Care will be for you & me. Compared to evil insurance companies, Medicare is a paragon of economic efficiency … over (X) billion served, with administrative overhead of only 2%.
NPR tells us why. It’s because Medicare’s administrative function is pumping out checks, often to phony suppliers of phony medical equipment and services. Almost no Medicare dollars are spent on the prevention, detection, or prosecution of fraud. The estimated count and amount? About $70 billion a year expended on fakes. Now I know that’s chump change, compared to Iraq, but extended over Medicare’s tenure, $70 billion/year starts to look like real money.
Actually, I’ve done a tad bit more than just read the whole thing. I took two courses in Constitutional Law in college.
Well…
[unzips pants, whips it out]
I’ve *taught* university-level Con Law.
Obviously, this is a much more complex issue than the way it has been addressed here, but, then, it’s an issue that has developed over several centuries, so that’s just going to have to happen. It’s not the end of the world.
With that in mind, I’ll just briefly add that the long and the short of it is that Don Joe is correct; as a constitutional matter, the size and scope of national government is largely – though not completely – unconstrained. Justice Thomas may not agree, but it’s a settled question for the vast majority of conservative judges, let alone the entirety of the judiciary.
Also, for an outstanding perspective on the changes that took place both before and under the New Deal court, especially with respect to the interstate commerce clause, read Barry Cushman’s (1998) Rethinking the New Deal Court: the Structure of a Constitutional Revolution (Oxford University Press).
[puts it back in pants, zips pants, spits]
DJ’s switch in time: OK, you (who took 2! classes) and the big swingin’ dick (who *taught* con law) are way ahead of me on Federalist nuances, but I’m probably way ahead of you on the Switch. Tell me what you know or think you know, while zipping your pants, and I’ll tell you if you have a clue.
Tell me what you know or think you know, while zipping your pants, and I’ll tell you if you have a clue.
Hey, I don’t know how you do it, but I zip and unzip my pants with my hands. I can’t explain it to you while zipping my pants.
Tell me what you know or think you know, while zipping your pants, and I’ll tell you if you have a clue.
Well, since I haven’t unzipped my pants, I can probably say something, though it’s been a quarter century since I’ve studied this stuff. As I recall, however, FDR and a fairly cooperative Congress had made several attempts to pass legislation designed to get the US out of the Great Depression (based primarily on Keynesian Economic ideas–my degree, by the way, is in Economics), and the Supreme Court kept striking them down as unconstitutional using an interpretation that’s not at all dissimilar to the one Piper advocates.
FDR’s response was to threaten to change the makeup of the Court by increasing the number of sitting judges (from nine to exactly what I don’t recall), at which point the Court saw the writing on the wall, did an about-face on the Constitutional interpretation that let some of the most important New Deal legislation stand, and voila! The switch in time that saved nine. FDR never had to follow through on the threat, because the Court changed its tune.
PS, the two courses with which you seem to be so impressed actually broke Con Law up into two general categories. The first covered things like the separation of powers and the scope of governmental authority. The second covered things like individual rights and freedoms and the selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the XIVth Amendment. Case 1 in the first class was, of course, Marbury v. Madison. Case 1 in the second class was Plessy v. Ferguson. That should give you an idea of the breakdown.
FDR’s response was to threaten to change the makeup of the Court by increasing the number of sitting judges (from nine to exactly what I don’t recall), at which point the Court saw the writing on the wall, did an about-face on the Constitutional interpretation that let some of the most important New Deal legislation stand, and voila! The switch in time that saved nine. FDR never had to follow through on the threat, because the Court changed its tune.
I don’t know if KVD knows anything about “The Switch,” but that’s the conventional explanation. Unfortunately, the way it’s been described for decades is wrong. I’m busy right now, but I’ll explain more in a bit.
ATJ,
Well, yeah, that was a tad bit oversimplified. The makeup of the Court itself played a role. Hoover had appointed three liberal judges, including Roberts, Huges and Cordozo, though, on Economic issues, Roberts tended to side with the conservatives. It was also shortly after that decision that Felix Frankfurter was appointed to the Court, and that also had an effect on the Court’s overall thinking.
There was an article in the Boston Globe a while back that talked about some recent changes in thinking among some historians, and I think the gist of the idea is that a change in the Court’s thinking had already been under way at the time Roberts made the switch and that FDR’s threat to pack the court really only served to nudge the court over a line to which hit had been dancing increasingly close over the preceeding years.
By the way, for the local connection, the case in question was West Coast Hotels v Parrish, and involved a Wasington State minimum wage law.
Okay, I’m back.
There was an article in the Boston Globe a while back that talked about some recent changes in thinking among some historians, and I think the gist of the idea is that a change in the Court’s thinking had already been under way at the time Roberts made the switch and that FDR’s threat to pack the court really only served to nudge the court over a line to which hit had been dancing increasingly close over the preceeding years.
The first half is mostly correct; the second half is where the conventional narrative fails. I’ll take them in reverse order.
With respect to the court packing plan, it had nothing to do with the switch. Roberts had changed his vote (and the decisions in West Coast Hotel and Jones & Laughlin Steel had been made) two months before the plan was ever revealed. It sure has hell looked like it to outsiders, given the timing of the decision *announcements*, but the court packing plan played no role in the Court’s deliberations.
As for the change in the Court’s thinking prior to the switch, you’ve got the basic outline right, so you’re on much more solid ground. It’s waaay more than anyone wants to hear (and more than I want to type on a nice Friday evening) to explain in detail, but I’ll give the short version of the Cliff Notes version….
There were two parallel lines of jurisprudence relevant here: one with respect to the interstate commerce clause and the scope of the national government’s powers, and one with respect to the due process clause of the 14th Am and the scope of state power (especially to intervene in economic affairs). In both of these areas, the Court had indeed been gradually chipping away at barriers to government intervention.
The change with respect to state power in particular was misdiagnosed by earlier scholarship. Cushman’s book is one of the best works to consult to understand this in depth, but the very short version is that the economic substantive due process rights enunciated during the Lochner era were transformed in the 20s and 30s to allow for increased state economic intervention, culminating in West Coast Hotel.
And of course, the commerce clause was under assault for years before Jones & Laughlin Steel. What’s generally underrated by many traditional narratives are the changes that took place not long *after* J & L S. Those changes pushed the commerce clause so far as to allow government intervention in virtually any activity (see esp, Wickard v. Filburn (1941? ’42?).
In recent decades, some of the most extreme interpretations of the commerce clause powers have been rolled back (see esp, US v. Lopez and US v. Morrison), but much of the national government’s power is still rooted in the commerce clause.
I need a beer…
Oh, and before I forget:
OK, you (who took 2! classes) and the big swingin’ dick (who *taught* con law) are way ahead of me on Federalist nuances, but I’m probably way ahead of you on the Switch. Tell me what you know or think you know, while zipping your pants, and I’ll tell you if you have a clue.
I thought I was clear in my post, but maybe I wasn’t. My pants unzipping and zipping reference was just a little joke intended to poke a little fun at Don Joe, who I know can take a little good-natured ribbing. A “Well, if we’re pulling out our *CREDENTIALS*…” joke. Nothing more. I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned it on this blog before, and it’s not a big deal to me. It’s just something I did.
So, if you think I’m full of myself, it’s your prerogative to believe what you like, but it wasn’t my intention to seem so.
ATJ,
No sweat on the “CREDENTIALS” thing, and I hope no one was thinking the same thing of my own statement. I was merely amused at Piper’s suggestion that I should, gosh darn it, read the Constitution. I enjoy catching pompous assholes in their presumption of other people’s ignorance.
And, thanks for the synopsis. I was aware of the time line between the West Cost Hotels decision and FDR’s announcement of his intent to pack the Court. I have been under the impression, though, that there is some historical evidence to suggest that FDR’s intention had been communicated to the Court long before it had been announced, though I must confess that I am not at all familiar with the nature of that evidence.
However, while we’re on the subject of the Supreme Court, I think one of the most compelling reasons to vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is for President is that the next president will be nominating a replacement for quite likely Justice Stevens and quite possibly Justice Ginsburg (the two oldest members of the Court at ages 87 and 74 respectively).
I have to confess that I’m a bit out of date in terminology, but judicial philosophy with respect to the exercise of judicial review used to be categorized in terms of “judicial activism” and “judicial restraint”–a least until Judge Bork shows up on the scene and turned the meaning of those terms on their ear. Was it Felix Frankfurter who likened the power of judicial review to that of a shotgun that’s best kept in the closet only to be brought out in the most extreme circumstances?
As I understand it, however, recent developments in Political Science tend to employ a different taxonomy, proposed, as I recall, by Cass Sunstein at the University of Chicago: of majoritarians, perfectionists, fundamentalists and minimalists. The first two categories rather closely align with the old categories of judicial restraint and judicial activism.
The latter two categories are characterised by those who seek to apply the meaning of the Constitution as it was written in the late 18th Century (fundamentalists) and those who seek the most narrow Constitutional interpretation possible under the circumstances in a given case (minimalists).
The current composition of the Court, being almost entirely conservative, is best understood in terms of these last two categories, with the fundamentalist block being the ones most likely to depart from doctrine of stare decisis, thereby bringing about radical changes in the kinds of things Congress might, or might not, be allowed to do.
So, we have Justices Stevens (Ford), Kennedy (Reagan), Souter (Bush I), Breyer (Clinton) and Ginsburg (Clinton) who are clearly in the minimalist camp, and we have Scalia (Reagan) and Thomas (Bush I) who are clearly in the fundamentalist camp. The question is, where do the two Bush II appointments, Roberts and Alito, fall?
As best I can tell, that’s a tough call. According to what I’ve read, Roberts and Alito tend to at least articulate their opinions in minimalist terms, i.e. absent any broad, sweaping statements that would set a new standard for Constitutional interpretation on any given issue, but that they always seem to end up in the same place as the two fundamentalists.
Does that reflect your understanding, and can you offer any insights?