Journal pudge's Journal: About Time 13
It's about time. The U.S. government is now dominated by the Republican party on all fronts. Now, maybe some good will get done.
Oh, I have no illusions that the GOP is perfect. I dislike the majority GOP opinion on several important fronts, especially in regard to Microsoft and various speech issues (e.g., copyright). But right now I am more interested in fixing social security, health care, and the economy, and the GOP now has the opportunity and responsibility to fix them. Along the way, they can lower taxes, increase national defense, and get more conservative judges on the bench (the more strictly constructionist, the better).
Of course, if they fail, they will be gone in two years. But I don't think they will fail.
I am also placing bets on when the GOP will take control of the Senate. I am thinking it will be in two weeks. If the new Reform Senator from Minnesota would vote for Lott, then the GOP can take control of the Senate essentially at any time. They might wait for Coleman to arrive, or until the new Congress begins, though.
I think that it would be poetic if Daschle was replaced as Majority Leader as soon as possible, since he's really the one who blew this whole election for the Democrats. Forgetting that It's The Economy, Stupid, the Democrats focused primarily on war and homeland security for the past few months. Stupid. But I am thankful.
Control (Score:2)
Re:Control (Score:1)
Re:Control (Score:2)
foolish (Score:2)
Republicans and Democrats are essentially identical. They're both so close to center it's insane to talk about differences. The only major difference if their allegences.
Bush is an idiot, I'm sure I don't need to go into why. With a Democratically controlled house there's a much better chance of keeping his insane policies in check. Republicans are much less likely to break the party-line than dems are. The last thing I want is PATRIOT-2 or a full-blown war with Iraq and (more and more likely) North Korea.
Triv
Re:foolish (Score:2)
And Bush is not an idiot. He is quite bright. He just can't talk. No one in national politics, no one who covers the President in the media, thinks he is an idiot. One reason he keeps winning elections is that his opponents keep underestimating him. So feel free to keep thinking he is an idiot.
And I see nothing insane about his policies. Sorry. You're afraid of war? Well, what has Bush done that has pushed us closer to war, really? Sure, he has threatened war with his words, but his actions have actually been those of working with the UN to get inspectors back into Iraq, something almost everyone in the UN -- not just the US and UK -- wants. Which will in the long run avoid war, if Iraq complies. The whole idea -- which you are free to disagree with, but is a legitimate idea nontheless -- is that Iraq will eventually make large-scale war in the region if left unchecked, and that the UN has the right and the obligation to check the nation. If Iraq does not comply, at the very least, we are keeping the eventual war contained and smaller than it would be if we did nothing.
I ignore words in international politics, I look at actions. France is often critical of the US, but has not vetoed a US resolution in the Security Council since 1956 (when France was the one "starting a war" in the Middle East). Russia says they will refuse language that says force will be used if Iraq fails to comply, but they will almost surely approve a resolution that mentions force. Iraq has said they will allow inspectors unconditionally, that they would never agree to new inspections, that they would agree to inspections only if there is not a new resolution, etc., and have gone back on what they said over and again. The U.S. says they will use force without the UN, but has taken no actual action in this regard, and by all accounts is moving along with the UN processes, even at its frustratingly slow pace.
The only way war with Iraq will happen is if Iraq does not comply with weapons inspections, and in that case, it will be the UN, including the Security Council, behind the war. And God forbid that happens, but if it does, it is only because Iraq is causing it to happen, and the UN has given full-throated agreement to it. And again, it will be better than a larger-scale war that IMO is likely if we don't act. Perhaps you think such an eventual war is unlikely. Fine. But you cannot make the case that believing it is likely is unreasonable.
And as to North Korea, I see no signs of the US going to war there, and don't consider it an issue.
Re:foolish (Score:2)
No. I refuse to support an unwarranted war. I'll get to a definition in a bit.
Well, what has Bush done that has pushed us closer to war, really?
Easy. He pushes for unrestricted weapons inspections. Saddam hems and haws, and eventually says 'sure. Come on in.' Bush backpedals and says only unilateral force will be enough to shut him down. T'was in the times last week.
Iraq will eventually make large-scale war in the region if left unchecked, and that the UN has the right and the obligation to check the nation.
NO. IF Iraq makes large-scale war in the region the UN has the obligation to INTERVENE. And there's a BIG difference between the US and the UN. As of right now the security council is firmly divided on a war resolution. Bush was expecting the backing of Mexico, he didn't get it. Bush was hoping for the backing of France and Germany. Both are hesitant. Even then, UN backing makes it legitimate and sidesteps the international political suicide a unilateral attack on Iraq would be but it's still nuts - there's no hard evidence that Iraq is in any way involved in terrorism. WE ARE NOT THE WORLD'S POLICEMEN. If Iraq wants to take over, say, Kuwait, LET 'EM. It's barely our problem. Cynical, I know, but I'm more concerned with what's going wrong here than with what's wrong halfway around the world.
Triv
Re:foolish (Score:2)
That is false. The Times was wrong. Iraq has never agreed to unrestricted inspections. They said they would agree, but then they started talking about restrictions (the most well-known ones having to do with the palace inspections having restrictions).
For some perspective, the UN's chief weapons inspector has said that a new resolution is nececssary, and that he will not go into Iraq without one. Iraq cannot be trusted in this matter. We cannot simply accept Iraq at their word, even if they had actually given it (which they haven't actually done).
Iraq will eventually make large-scale war in the region if left unchecked, and that the UN has the right and the obligation to check the nation.
NO. IF Iraq makes large-scale war in the region the UN has the obligation to INTERVENE.
How is that different from what I said? I don't see a distinction made, despite your emphatic disagreement.
As of right now the security council is firmly divided on a war resolution.
As of right now, France, US, and the UK are on board with the new US resolution, and Russia will be on board by Friday. China will abstain. Oh no, Mexico won't go along. Germany likely will, as will Singapore, Ireland, Bulgaria. I don't know about some of the others, but some of those certainly will also agree, but they've already got a majority, with no vetos.
there's no hard evidence that Iraq is in any way involved in terrorism
So? I don't see how that matters. The point is that the UN was obligated to disarm Iraq, and it never happened, and it needs to happen, and if Iraq won't let it happen, then the UN should take measures to force them to allow it to happen. That's all this is. That is all the US is materially asking for.
WE ARE NOT THE WORLD'S POLICEMEN.
Well, the US is not acting as such. It is working entirely through the UN. Yes, Congress approved a resolution to allow US use of force, but that was just a political ploy to help force the UN to act. You can keep saying aphorisms like this, but it doesn't really move the discussion forward. I want to know specific actions that happen that you don't like. How has the US acted inappropriately, in what way has it taken "police action"?
If Iraq wants to take over, say, Kuwait, LET 'EM. It's barely our problem. Cynical, I know, but I'm more concerned with what's going wrong here than with what's wrong halfway around the world.
And Saudi Arabia. And Israel. Call me old-fashioned, but like it or not, we are Israel's ally, and it would be immoral to abandon them at their greatest time of need.
Agenda (Score:1)
The Republican plan for "fixing" social security means de-funding it at the time when funding is most needed. "Health care" means letting poor people keep getting sick and spending thousands of dollars on them in the emergency room instead of fifty bucks for regular doctor visits. The Bush plan for "the economy" is well on its way: stay the course, cut taxes, stay the course (done a lot of good in two years hasn't it?).
Lowering taxes: yes, I am sure the estate tax will soon be made permanent, which is good news for the 3,300 rich families who pay half of it. (This will probably be passed amid apocryphal [nytimes.com] references to "family farms" and "small businesses," because Bush cannot tell a truth when it comes to taxes.) By "increase national defense," I assume you meant "...defense spending," which of course is a euphemism for defense-contractor welfare (see "missile defense") and waging offensive warfare (see "Iraq") and has nothing to do with defending this country (see "September 11th" and "shoe bomber" and whatever low-tech attack is next).
I applaud your honesty regarding your desire for partisan judges, but it would have been more honest without the parenthetical attempt to justify same with an out-of-fashion coded reference.
Re:Agenda (Score:2)
I hope you are wrong about health care. I think it is the biggest domestic challenge we face right now. But even the status quo would IMO be preferable to the plan the Clintons tried to pass early in Bill's first term.
The economic plan is fine, and yes, it has done fairly well for us for two years. The drops we saw were unavoidable, and began under Clinton, not that I blame him: we had huge gains brought on by the private sector, and huge drops brought on by the private sector. And it's been fairly steady, though rough, sailing, and we are beginning to pull out of it. What would you have done? Increased taxes and interest rates?
The estate tax is a minor issue in this discussion, but I am opposed to it on principle -- I believe that you should be able to do whatever you wish with your already-taxed money, even after death -- and see no reason to discuss it further than that. You disagree with my principles in this matter. Oh well.
And no, I mean increase national defense, not spending. Yes, it will likely involve an increase in spending, but I am more concerned with increasing forces, weaponry, intelligence, etc. I am looking at the end result, which is why I phrased it that way. I can't see how it would not include an increase in spending, but that is not my particular point. I was not attempting to use a euphemism, but to emphasize what I see as important.
And I am not interested in partisan judges; you misread (hopefully, not intentionally so). I am interested in judges who don't try to make law, but try to interpret law as it was originally intended. I am interested in this (as I define it) conservative approach to the law. I used no coded reference; you are mistaken. What do you mean by that?
Re:Agenda (Score:1)
In cutthroat capitalism, if you don't forcibly set aside money for long-term plans, only the rich get to have long-term plans. If the working poor get an extra 5% from their paycheck, it goes to car repairs or credit-card payments or maybe just having a good time once in a while. Give everyone an extra 5% and the net result is that everyone's cost of living goes up 4%. Landlords, and the executives at Exxon and McDonald's, take the lion's share of the "tax rebate" and essentially none of it goes toward anyone's retirement.
Re the estate tax, I've never understood your point on this. What is "already-taxed money"? There is no such thing. Every dollar is taxed over and over again from the time it's printed until the time it's shredded, almost every time it changes hands. Why is it that the most important time the GOP objects to this is when it passes from a dead person's hands to a live one's? Could it be that this tax only affects the super-rich? Is that why it's so important to repeal it? Is that why (watch!) over the next two years we'll see a huge push to make its repeal permanent?
Yes I know you would get rid of most of the rest of the taxes too. That's fine because your plan is so nutty and destructive that it could never be enacted so I don't much mind. :) But don't think that just because you stand on this principle, that the Republicans have any principles here other than saving America's 3,300 richest families billions of dollars.
Your coded reference was "strict constructionist." As Rehnquist himself observed [salon.com], a strict constructionist is anyone who likes prosecutors and dislikes criminal defendants, and who favors civil rights defendants over civil rights plaintiffs. "Strict construction" used to have a principled meaning, someday, maybe. Now it's a code-word for a preferred type of bias.
Look at it this way. When the Constitution was written, the entire population of the United States was about the size that L.A. is today. Think about the practical matter of governing one county in California and that's the size of governance our founders had to think about. They did a great job of trying to come up with general principles for posterity to go on. But technology and sheer complexity outpaced their thinking, say, fifty years ago. Judges get to decide things like (let's say) whether spread-spectrum selloff profit taxation should be reapportioned on a geographic or per-capita basis. There is nothing in the Constitution that speaks to that: zip, nada. The concept of the "spectrum" is one which the founders were completely ignorant of.
How is strict adherence to the Constitution going to decide for us whether an international corporation (of a type that didn't exist until a hundred years ago) should be allowed to extend its monopoly (of a type that didn't exist until ten years ago) from the internet (ditto) to the desktop (ditto)? What does the Constitution tell us about instant messaging, interoperability, and SOAP?
Every niche and crevice defined by the Constitution has already been filled in and mapped out. Maybe one decision in a thousand can actually be traced back to what you are calling "strict" vs. "loose" construction. (Quick: name one you care about besides Roe v. Wade.) But essentially everything interesting nowadays is so complex that the thoughts and language of the founders have no bearing on it -- either decision can be equally well defended by reference to supreme law of the land -- and judges simply have to do what they feel is right. And in the case of conservative judges, that means what they feel is right.
Larry Lessig has some really interesting views on this; he uses the 4th Amendment as an example of what exactly privacy rights mean now, as I recall. Go read him :)
Re:Agenda (Score:2)
Yes, you think the government should do for people what they refuse to do for themselves. I don't. There's really not much more to say here, is there?
Re the estate tax, I've never understood your point on this.
Simple: it is my money. I should do as a please with it, in life or death. Why not tax live people if they have "too much" money in the bank? Because it is theirs. I can't see how you can't see how I see this.
But don't think that just because you stand on this principle, that the Republicans have any principles here other than saving America's 3,300 richest families billions of dollars.
I don't pretend the GOP as a whole is principled. I just think they will be more effective at enacting laws that represent my principles than the other guys.
Your coded reference was "strict constructionist." As Rehnquist himself observed [salon.com], a strict constructionist is anyone who likes prosecutors and dislikes criminal defendants, and who favors civil rights defendants over civil rights plaintiffs. "Strict construction" used to have a principled meaning, someday, maybe. Now it's a code-word for a preferred type of bias.
I would wager he was saying it tongue-in-cheek, but regardless, the term has been around since long before Rehnquist, and my meaning for the term is very literal.
How is strict adherence to the Constitution going to decide for us whether an international corporation (of a type that didn't exist until a hundred years ago) should be allowed to extend its monopoly (of a type that didn't exist until ten years ago) from the internet (sic.) (ditto) to the desktop (ditto)?
It doesn't. So? I am not saying the Constitution is the end of the jurisdiction of a federal judge. We do have federal law for them to interpret, too. I don't see such specifics relating to anti-trust as Constitutional issues.
Maybe one decision in a thousand can actually be traced back to what you are calling "strict" vs. "loose" construction. (Quick: name one you care about besides Roe v. Wade.)
Eldred v Ashcroft.
Re:Agenda (Score:1)
That's a really good example, if you look at Eldred's best argument, the "limited times" clause. Does Congress' extension of copyright by 40 years over the past 40 years fall within its power of preserving copyright for "limited times"? How do you decide which of those dozen or more extensions is Constitutional and which is not? How do you draw the line?
You can make arguments on either side (I suspect we'd be on the same side of this one), but I see no way to anchor one argument more than another in the language of the Constitution. Obviously there is a limit, look, 95 years, that's a limit. Obviously there is not a limit, look, it keeps being extended, there's no limit.
Or how about Eldred's other argument, the First Amendment. Where in the 1A does it say that copyright shall not be extended by 40 years over 40 years?
It comes down to a gut feeling, honestly, about what is right, and whichever way Eldred falls, we will have no business calling the decision "strict" or "loose": only right or wrong.
Re:Agenda (Score:1)
However, you do make a fine point, and sometimes determining the original intent is difficult, or impossible. But it should be the goal.