Time to dissolve the people and elect a new one?
Because that's the only thing that can be meant by "ungovernable America" (via HotAir.com):
The smarter elements in Washington DC are starting to pick up on the fact that it’s not tactical errors on the part of the president that make it hard to get things done, it’s the fact that the country has become ungovernable.
Why yes. It is time for the government to dissolve the people and elect another, preferably one that wouldn't hold tea parties or petition the representatives to represent them.
And as for,
We’re suffering from an incoherent institutional set-up in the senate. You can have a system in which a defeated minority still gets a share of governing authority and participates constructively in the victorious majority’s governing agenda, shaping policy around the margins in ways more to their liking.
With Barack "I won" Obama in the office? The president refuses to recognize that the loyal opposition has legitimate concerns and workable alternatives. I don't see how the defeated minority can get a voice in this culture, except by using what may be called obstructionist tactics and making the majority hear them.
If you have a problem with that, get 60+ seats in the Senate. FDR did that, and even so he couldn't pass some of his most outrageous bills.
America is working fine. Our system has stood the test of time and there is no reason to change it (yet). Just because far left elements of the Democratic Party cannot stand the fact that they live in a center-right country doesn't mean we should dissolve the whole country for their sake.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of the little minds
At least that might explain some of the positions of liberals:
For instance, she has supported the work of feminists all along. She, in her book, Greta, as you know, gives credit to Title IX, says if Title IX was not there, she would not have been able to go to college because she couldn't afford to do it. She gives full credit. Do you know how much aggravation and pressure went on trying to fight the conservatives in Congress and get that legislation passed when I was in Congress?
How does that matter that feminists had to fight conservatives in Congress to get Title IX legislation passed? Conservatives then are not conservatives now, for one, and even if we are talking about the same conservatives, are liberals saying that conservatives cannot (or shouldn't) change their minds on anything?
Conservatives are, rightfully, wary of sudden changes. We want any changes to be gradual. We want to be able to roll back the changes if the changes we make to our society turn out to be harmful. But that does not mean we don't see benefits of certain changes.
Even supposing that small-government conservatives were against, say, women's suffrage or emancipation of slaves (trust me, they were not; they just wanted federal government out of states' affairs), tell me if you can find any conservative today who actually wants to remove women's right to vote—or re-institute slavery (in fact, the only slavery-praising quotes I have seen come from a liberal making up and claiming that Rush Limbaugh said something that he didn't).
Liberals were good for something once. At one point, they did stand for liberty (which is why the label "liberal" stuck, even after the label was no longer true). But, in foolish pursuit of consistency, they are pushing even more power for women, minorities, and unions, because that's the direction they have been going in and they think they need to continue in that direction. The concept of equality and moderation (i.e. that once some major goals are accomplished, that's where you stop, or at least try to balance the power and "rights" of various groups) has no place in the liberal vocabulary.
Just like trade unions were good for something at some point, liberal ideology was good and honorable in the long, long times past. And, just like trade unions today, we are better off without liberal ideology than with it.
Irony: Liberals complain about Republican filibusters
Nothing says irony better than when liberals complain about Republican filibusters now:
But minority rule is what today's Republicans are all about. Hence we see disruption in the districts and stagnation in the Senate. When and whether the majority will bestir itself to reestablish democracy's first principle is anybody's guess. Abolishing the filibuster would be a good start -- and perhaps a necessary step to enact to big changes like health reform.
That's funny. Don't Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority? If you want to complain about "rule by minority" (BTW, it's called "preventing tyranny of majority": all that the minority can do is prevent action, like a chess player who lost the tempo, it can never make active aggression against the majority), complain about Blue Dog Democrats. Complain about how they are DINOs. Maybe they will, like Arlen Specter, switch party and come to us: except, unlike Arlen Specter, they will be welcomed and honored, since, regardless of our differences on certain issues, they came to our aid in our time of need—and the issue that drove them to us proves that they are conservatives at heart and on the fundamental issues.
I for one, wouldn't be terribly against making filibuster harder. Or, even perhaps eliminating it by "nuclear option": Democrats always had that option, even before "Senator Franken" got there. They didn't use it because they expected to be out of power soon, and then it would be they who needed to filibuster. Perhaps this would be too drastic—to expect it of our corrupt senators. But I am all for making it harder. Today, all that a senator needs to do to filibuster is communicate his intention to filibuster and be present. He doesn't even have to read a phone book. Make them make a speech. Make them prepare for a filibuster like late Strom Thurmond did, dehydrating himself so that he can drink water without having to go to bathroom.
Democrats have all these options (even the option of simply voting for cloture with their filibuster proof majority!) but they are not using it. Why are we blaming Republicans again? Is it because it's sin for them to be a Republican—or, like one of those inconvenient fetuses, to exist at all?
Arm everyone!
Mr. Dionne makes a convincing case for allowing our senators the right for self-defense:
Isn't it time to dismantle the metal detectors, send the guards at the doors away and allow Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights by being free to carry their firearms into the nation's Capitol?
I've been studying the deep thoughts of senators who regularly express their undying loyalty to the National Rifle Association, and I have decided that they should practice what they preach. They tell us that the best defense against crime is an armed citizenry and that laws restricting guns do nothing to stop violence.
If they believe that, why don't they live by it?
No kidding. The airline pilots wanted to do the same thing for a long time, and finally after 9/11 they got it (mainly the cost of having an air marshal on every flight was prohibitively high). There is a danger that Obama may try to end it in the liberal attempt to produce a docile population, but I frankly don't think he has enough political capital left after squandering it in the meaningless health care debate.
So, by all means. Aren't senators people too? Don't they deserve the God-given, Constitution-guaranteed right to self defense?
Arm our senators. In fact, arm everyone. If we ever get to the point where, if we armed everyone, criminals will win, well, I think we would have a bigger problem than simple gun control.
Push for postpartum “abortion”?
On Glenn Beck Show, they describe the views of some liberal
Well, frankly, I wish all liberals were like this. To borrow the words of Harry S. Alford, at least that way we know who to keep our eyes on.
At some level, we could put monetary values on human and animal life. For example, your guard dog could be guarding a house filled with items of total worth $100,000. Or, more precisely, you could calculate how much it would cost you to hire a guard instead of having a dog ($10 to $20 per hour). So, the guard dog is worth that much to you. On the other hand, your grandma (or a spouse) who is on life support could be costing you some X number of dollars per day to you. I don't know the exact numbers, but let's say it's $100 per day. Then your grandma is worth minus $100 per day to you, every day of her life.
But should your values and moral compass be based on some dodgy accounting? Should you put your trust in an "accounting system" for your morals which says that your guard dog is worth more than your invalid child? Does that make sense to you, at the fundamental level?
It doesn't matter what your religion is or what your moral values are in specific issues. All of us humans (who are not sophists or liberals) have some innate feeling that a human being is, in all cases, worth more than any other life or material possessions. Sometimes it is necessary that we make the comparison between a human life and things of material value (for example, to compensate victims of some large accident), but that is done strictly on the sense of what monetary value he would have been worth to the victim's family's, not what his innate value itself was.
But then, I guess for a liberal moral relativist, nothing really has any fundamental value in and of itself, so he is forced to measure even human life to money, the universal metric of worth in his atheist, secular world. In this liberal, we see how our value system would change in an atheist world. Ask yourself: is this a world you want to live in?
“Helping those who can’t help themselves”? That’s not America. That’s socialist Europe.
This is why I ... don't enjoy watching movies. The entire industry is filled with liberal statists who literally cannot stop themselves from being preachy. I just watched through Swing Vote, and while I like the overall concept (and much of the delivery), the details disgust me.
At some point in the movie, they have the precocious girl express her sympathies for the poor and helping "those who cannot help themselves".
That may sound innocent, but it is not. That is one of the cornerstones of liberal statism and the first stepping stone to 1984-style, Big Brother, nanny government. Because after all, if the government is to put its resources to help the poor and those who cannot help themselves, well, where are they going to get that resource? By taxing the rich and middle class. And since this is a huge project (Social Security and other socialist programs account for a very good chunk of the mandatory federal government spending), there are a lot of gaps to hide pork projects and other projects that ensure firm government control (which should lead to better ability to tax).
Guilt is the first hook liberals and statists use on the population. Sometimes they appeal to generosity, but generosity can only inspire charity, not willingness to fork over 30+ cents per every dollar they earn. We must resist them not when it's too late, but nip them in the bud—when they try to use guilt to goad us in the direction that our instinct tells us isn't right.
For the record, America doesn't stand for simply "helping those who cannot help themselves". That's the socialist Europe. We stand for helping those who cannot help themselves help themselves (i.e. equality of opportunity, not result). This is the same spirit in which we do not treat disabled Americans gingerly but let them be self-sufficient, occasionally helping only when asked for. This is the same spirit of individualism where every man and woman needs to be able to stand up for oneself.
Is Palin a liar? I don’t know, is Obama a promise-breaking crook?
Liberals, running short of any more overhyped dirt to throw at Palin (especially now that she's stepping down, no more frivolous ethics complaints will be possible) compiles a list of trivia on every possible untruth spoken by Palin.
I had to stop midway through the list because it was quite clear by then that about 1/3 of the list was based on deliberate misinterpretation of what Palin said ("Palin lied when she claimed in her convention speech that an gas pipeline "began" under her guidance; in fact, the pipeline was years from breaking ground, if at all." and "Palin lied when she told Charlie Gibson that she does not pass judgment on gay people; in fact, she opposes all rights between gay spouses and belongs to a church that promotes conversion therapy." Just to make it clear to people with no understanding of Christian ... philosophy. When Palin said that she passes "no judgment on gay people", she didn't mean she heartily approves of their "life style". She meant it in a way one might say, "I pass no judgment on mental patients". Some among Christians view homosexuality as a condition that needs to be fixed. It's a compassionate point of view. It is by no means "passing judgment on gay people" and I think, based on her church affiliation, that's what Palin meant—that she doesn't view gay people as sinners worthy of stoning, but she does view them as she views alcoholics, i.e. people who need help), the other 1/3 are trivial things where Gov. Palin could have simply mis-remembered trivial facts ("Palin lied when she told Shimon Peres that the only flag in her office was the Israeli flag; in fact, she has several flags."), and the remaining 1/3 represent not lies but changing opinion of a young person, and well, not remembering that she had previously held a slightly different opinion ("Palin lied when she denied having said that humans do not contribute to climate change; in fact, she had previously proclaimed that human activity was not to blame.").
If you had looked through the list and honestly asked yourself, would I have "lied" this much being judged by this standard, what would the answer be yes? God knows my answer is a resounding yes. For example, I recall, as recently as last year, arguing somewhere (probably Slashdot) that we should tax people to "equilibrium", i.e. to the point where tax taken away is so much that it's not worth it for them to work that extra amount; now I believe all taxes are evil, and all acts of legal tax avoidance is heroic patriotism. If I were asked about what my previous opinions were 2, 3 years ago, I am fairly sure I would "lie" on half the questions.
Now, compare this to the lies Obama told. "Lies" that Palin told were speeches, some probably written by other writers. Lies that Obama told were campaign promises which he had either reversed himself (Iraq and FISA, on the issues I care about as libertarian) even before election, or broken them (not raising tax on Americans earning less than $250,000; look at tobacco tax) in the few months he has been in the office.
Where's the coverage on that? Or are liberals acknowledging that a liberal's word isn't worth the air necessary to carry the sound waves through?
Bill of Rights, conservative & liberal versions
As someone on HotAir.com protests, this does not fairly present the conservative viewpoint (although in fairness to Reason.tv, it mostly shows the conservative guy sitting idly by as the liberal scratches out most of the 10 Amendments, rather than actively scratching out, e.g. the Second Amendment himself). Well, I'd say it's more of liberals vs. neocons—neocons who have ... inherited much of liberal disdain for rule of the law along with their "compassion".
As I keep saying, the core conservative values are libertarian when you look at it impartially—profound respect for the Constitution and values of our Founding Fathers, including their entirely reasonable suspicion of the government, especially the feds. The only points where traditional conservative may disagree with a typical libertarian is on social issues, and well, even there, I think we both agree that these questions should be answered by states, regardless of what the answer may be.
Well, if you are a neocon, I have as little sympathy for you as I have for liberals. But us conservatives (short of any definite name, let's call ourselves "Cheney conservatives", since Cheney did demonstrate that he believed military should be downsized once the need for it, i.e. the Cold War, was past) and libertarians should stop fighting each other—and work on making the world America safe from liberals and neocons.
He seems fine for a man tortured less than a minute ago
And he sounds rather insincere. If what he went through was really as horrible as he insinuated it was, how did he recover so quickly? He sounds more like a man who already made up his mind about how he was going to represent waterboarding and went through the motions. After all, the sergeant said that average was 14 seconds—a man who actually put his reputation on the line that waterboarding isn't torture (I don't know who this man is, but at least that's the impression I got from the video) is going to at least beat the average—unless he's a chicken.
And how did the water get into his nose? Wasn't the sergeant holding his nose as he was pouring water in? So if mouth is the only point of entry, and no one's holding his mouth open (I forget whether it was supposed to be forced open in enhanced interrogations), couldn't this wuss hold his breath for 7 seconds?
And really, my point is that he recovered too quickly. I've dived the wrong way into the pool a few times before and got water forced through my nose—when it's really bad, it takes more than a minute to recover properly—properly enough to talk. Blowing the nose once doesn't quite do it.
Anyways. I don't think I ever denied that waterboarding is a torture—for some definition of torture. But then, there's the waterboarding kind of torture. And there's the pulling out your fingernails one by one kind of torture, or even cutting your finger off one by one, or murdering your family and raping your wife in front of you kind of "torture". The word "torture" covers so wide a range that to call an act torture is to conflate a relatively benign interrogation technique and truly damaging, irreversible acts of sadism.
United States inconveniences a terrorist for 15 seconds in order to save lives. Terrorists cut off fingers of innocents to terrorize more innocents. Do you see the difference? Apparently liberals do not.
This is probably why Ron Paul doesn't support Fair Tax
because the arguments can be easily usurped by statists and liberals to institute a sales tax in addition to once-unconstitutional income tax:
A White House official said a VAT is “unlikely to be in the mix” as a means to pay for health-care reform. “While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers,” said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag…
Libertarians and conservatives should be working for lower overall tax. A revenue-neutral alternative taxing scheme does no good and is likely to be overtaken by ambitious statists as additional revenue source, rather than alternative. We should be working for cutting overall income and expenditure of the government.
Libertarianism has a strong basis (and indeed makes strongest arguments in) in sound economics. And any student of economics knows that when you levy tax on a particular group (for example, suppliers, as opposed to consumers), the effect of the tax doesn't simply affect that group—the laws of economics spreads out its effect so that everyone pays for a portion. A classic example in first-semester economics is how elasticity of demand and supply, not who nominally pays for the tax, determines the eventual share of the tax burden. A concrete example would be tax on gasoline. The government could impose tax on gasoline suppliers and sellers and claim there is no tax on consumers, i.e. voters. But, the gasoline suppliers can't just absorb the cost of new tax: in order to protect their profit margin and stay in business, they have to pass on the cost to the consumers through higher price. That higher price represents the portion of the new tax effectively paid by consumers, and what determines that portion is the slope of the demand curve ("elasticity") in the supply-and-demand curve, which is in turn determined by how many people can afford to pay higher price or afford not to buy gas because of higher price—i.e. laws of nature as concrete as that in physics, not the whims of some bureaucrat.
I'm not economics professor (or even econ major), but I am fairly sure similar mechanism exists in overall economy. If you tax only the richest 1% in a "revenue-neutral" fashion, I am fairly sure that the effect of the tax will trickle down so that the rest of the population ends up bearing their "fair share" eventually. What the government can effect is nominally who pays for the tax—but the laws of nature decide how the tax is actually distributed.
So, it doesn't matter whether we tax sales or income, at least in the grand scheme of things—it does matter in terms of what behavior you incentivize, but as a libertarian, I find it repulsive that the government should be deliberately giving economic incentives to people (i.e. micromanage their behavior) in the first place—what matters is that we tax less, regardless of how it's done.
Because really, robbery is robbery whether it's done at the ATM or at the grocery store. What matters is that the government robs less from her people.