- On 1 May 2013
in
Why Occupy Wall Street Failed,
msilenus said:
OWS did not fail. Liberals think that we live in some magical fairy land of instant radical political gratification. Political reality shifts so slowly in this country that most liberals cannot even perceive what actual victory feels like. In some ways OWS was more successful than the TEA movement.
OWS was successful in precipitating a shift in popular perspective. Prior to OWS, all economic discourse centered around GDP growth. Today, disparity is routinely also discussed. OWS did nothing less than open up a new dimension in how we perceive the economy. The winning Presidential candidate in 2012 made wealth disparity ("strengthening the middle class") a major issue of his campaign. Creating a notion that wealth disparity is a thing that government should be worried about is a huge ideological coup for a country like this.
Furthermore, OWS did nothing more than that. That is a virtue. Contrast that with TEAism, which attempts to coopt and extort the GOP into adopting its agenda by running radicals in primary elections. Without TEAism, there is simply no way the Democrats could possibly have held the Senate for the last four years. Karl Rove just founded an organization to combat the threat TEA poses to the GOP's Senate aspirations through open and organized infighting. Perhaps even more significantly: with real power has come real scrutiny on their batshit extremist ideology. If Mitt Romney hadn't been forced to cover himself in that stinking taint during the Republican primary, he might be President today.
The wheels of politics turn slowly, but wealth disparity is a serious issue in national politics today, and OWS did nothing to sabotage its chances of leading to real policy changes. The only sense in which the movement was a failure is a simple artifact of the fact that liberals don't have the good sense to know when they're winning. Or, at least, not yet losing. See also: pretty much all liberal critiques of Barack Obama's first term.
- On 28 Jan 2013
in
How to Debate Paul Krugman "Ask Questions Like a Child",
msilenus said:
Professor Krugman
It took me an embarassingly long time to realize that this is "Professor" being employed as a pejorative.
- On 28 Jan 2013
in
Palin's Political Obituary,
msilenus said:
In two years Palin will be the junior Senator from Alaska.
Maybe further down the line, but I don't think this will happen in two years time.
In 2008, Mark Begich (D) beat Ted Stevens (R) by a fairly narrow margin in Alaska. Narrow considering that Begich was riding Obama's coat tails, and Stevens was literally under indictment for corruption. Stevens was later cleared, but he not going to run next year. He is dead. If Pallin wants to have a chance of challenging a Democrat for Senate ever again, she would have to bet on Begich winning next year, and then wait six more. That is not be a good bet, and that is a long wait.
If Palin were going to run, she would have to quit her day job right about now. She cannot lay the groundwork for a state-level campain in Alaska from the lower 48. It is simply too far to commute back and forth.
She is running. She is going to win. You can count on it.
- On 28 Jan 2013
in
Palin's Political Obituary,
msilenus said:
In two years Palin will be the junior Senator from Alaska.
- On 12 Jan 2013
in
Profile of a Republican gun lunatic,
msilenus said:
I agree, but he also cherry picked his quotes from the era.
There are many quotes of citizens presenting military weapons for inspection. That wasn't the focus that he had.
He also never addressed side arms.
So I don't see in his opinion where he is banning guns, or taking guns away, he simply set parameters for having the guns.
Being the author of a majority opinion in a supreme court case means you can cherry-pick all you want. The only checks and balances on your behavior are your fellow justices, and the right of the executive to appoint successors after a quorum of your co-signers die of old age. Cherry picking or no, this is what the second amendment means until the grim reaper weighs in.
You're right that he's not taking away guns. He's actually overturning a law because it took away a particular kind of gun that he felt fell under the amendment. As CDon noted, a big part of what he's doing is saying where that protection ends. That means where on the weapon spectrum the government can start instituting bans, and what the government can do to regulate even protected weapons. He's obviously not legislating an AWB from the bench. But he's carving out enough room for Congress to write a new one, or to enact any number of other laws.
- On 11 Jan 2013
in
Profile of a Republican gun lunatic,
msilenus said:
... and what Scalia is saying is that the militia is just folks, with whatever weapons they would keep around for hunting or defense. One implication of his reading is that there is not any special right for the militia to have access to a wider selection of weaponry than everyone else. In part, because it's hard to separate his notion of "militia" from any reasonable definition of "everyone else," absent a crisis.
It really is an interesting point of view.
- On 10 Jan 2013
in
Profile of a Republican gun lunatic,
msilenus said:
Congratulations. You've removed enough context to make it appear to say the opposite of what it says.
- On 10 Jan 2013
in
Profile of a Republican gun lunatic,
msilenus said:
Well, shit.
I'm sorry that the opinion is long, but when Antonin fucking Scalia disagrees with you about what the word "militia" meant to the framers, and what that implies about the meaning of the right, it's sure as hell relevant to the debate. That is, again: (because even the portion I quoted was long and you might not have read to the end)
But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective is militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. [ie: in a more expansive way that would allow "unusual weapons", which he had just said could be disallowed in concurrence with Miller]This shit matters. It's not talking about the plaintiff or the defendant --this is raw constitutional interpretation. Scalia is laying down the core principles he applies to second amendment issues, and it turns out that the pro-gun wing has a view of the word "militia" and the law that renders the prior completely obsolete in the context of the latter.
It's doubly-relevant because Scalia's side won, and he is speaking for the victors.
- On 10 Jan 2013
in
Profile of a Republican gun lunatic,
msilenus said:
Boy, do you pick the wrong opinion to run with, "today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service."
The point is that Heller implies a realm of consensus exists between the top legal minds of the right and left on what is permissible for the government, and that consensus lies far outside the fantasist constitutional interpretation that gun advocates advance. Obviously the dissenters say the government can go further, but pointing that out fails to utterly discredit the pro-gun interpretation of the second amendment.
Per Antonin Scalia:
The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”...
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective is militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.So why did they strike down the hand gun ban?
As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home. It also requires that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, rendering it inoperable. As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.
This is what constitutes a pro-gun interpretation of the second amendment in the Supreme Court. When gun nuts go prophesying the doom of any gun control legislation on second amendment grounds, they inevitably chase it with a reading of the second amendment that is far to the right of Antonin Scalia's. Such readings are the silliest pro-gun fantasies you'll find outside a screening of Red Dawn. There is nothing in the public dialogue around post-Sandy-Hook gun control that would fall outside of what Scalia explicitly labels constitutionally permissible.
- On 10 Jan 2013
in
Profile of a Republican gun lunatic,
msilenus said:
Anyone who thinks that the second amendment protects assault rifles needs to go out and read Scalia's opinion in Heller to find out where the pro-gun wing of the Supreme Court thinks the constitutional line is drawn.
My only ask in return for this advice is that they do this with small vials strapped to their cheeks. I intend to open up an online business selling the tears of gun nuts to gun conrol advocates. I'll cut you in for a taste, of course.
Scalia traces the underpinnings of the Second Amendment to a natural right of self defense, and explicitly rejects the interpretation that it guarantees the militia access to weapons that could serve to challenge the military of the state. He says the government has unfettered power to regulate "unusual" weapons, and explicitly names M16 rifles --the military designation for the AR 15-- in his list of examples of what constitutes "unusual," alongside bombers and tanks.
It's also an interesting account of the history behind the Second Amendment in its own right.
- On 9 Jan 2013
in
Profile of a Republican gun lunatic,
msilenus said:
This is not a matter of free speech to me, this is the matter of the etiquette and sensitivity.
You invite someone to your house, you try to be a nice host and he starts complaining about your uncomfortable sofa and fatty food you give him. What would you do with such a guest? I wouldn't tolerate that for sure.This reads like something that could come out of the Kremlin today.
- On 9 Jan 2013
in
Profile of a Republican gun lunatic,
msilenus said:
$7000 per household. If you make $50k/yr, you've got to work 7 weeks to pay that expense alone.
The ancient Egyptians got a better deal from their government, one month a year on the pyramids, tops.
Under a flat tax, sure. But even families very near the median pay no income tax right now, and payroll taxes are earmarked for purposes other than funding the military.
Our tax code is progressive enough that most of what our government does simply is not shouldered by median income families. That's not a complaint, mind you: as long as income disparity is increasing, and the bottom quintiles aren't getting any benefit from expansions in the economy, that is As It Should Be. But it renders your populist appeal flat wrong. The military is expensive, but the people who pay for it can afford to do so.
why am *I* paying for *their* benefits?
Because you benefit. Global trade. Remember what the Japanese Tsunami did to the American manufacturing supply chain? Imagine what happens if South Korea disappears from the map. That is a very real possibility.
And the little bonuses from advanced military R&D are nice, too. Do you like GPS? Communications satellites? I know you like the Internet. A hell of a lot the modern world is based on fundamental technologies that are developed at great expense for the purpose of fighting wars. It is no accident that the United States benefits disproportionately from those technologies.
- On 9 Jan 2013
in
Profile of a Republican gun lunatic,
msilenus said:
I do not believe FRED has a data series for size of the U.S. carrier fleet, but I assure you that you will not find it doubling from 2000-present.
Overall defense spending is indeed very high right now, but it's hardly at an unprecedented --let alone unsustainable-- fraction of the U.S. economy. More importantly: defense spending is going to drop substantially as we draw down in Afghanistan, and make additional cuts. If those cuts impact the carrier fleet size at all, they will bring us down from eleven to ten.
Finally, there is some real economic value in the security those carriers (and, more generally, our globally unique force projection capability) afford our oversea allies, and the opportunities they deny our adversaries. China cannot invade Taiwan. North Korea cannot invade the South. Neither can seriously threaten Japan. Iran cannot close the Straights of Hormuz. Nicaragua cannot invade Costa Rica. Geopolitical stability is valuable, we benefit immensely from it, and just because no one else is willing to step up to the plate doesn't mean it's in even our most mercenary best interests to shrink from providing it.
Edit: I attempted to embed an image, but it's not rendering. You can find the graph about two-thirds the page below. It's the second one titled "U.S. National Defense Spending as % of GDP," the one going out to 2021:
http://www.cfr.org/geoeconomics/trends-us-military-spending/p28855 - On 9 Jan 2013
in
Profile of a Republican gun lunatic,
msilenus said:
I don't think this has any basis in fact. While the world does exist in a type of Pax Americana, the premise that Great Britian couldn't defend itself is absurd. They could easily hold off any potential enemy with a single aircraft carrier.
The UK does not have any aircraft carriers in the sense that we think of them. The closest is the HMS Illustrious, but with the Harrier retired, it is now effectively a helicopter carrier. The Illustrious is also diesel-powered, and is only about 1/5th the size of what we Americans are used to calling aircraft carriers. (The closest thing the U.S. has to a helicopter carrier are our "amphibious assault ships." They're about twice the size of the Illustrious, carry more helicopters, and also provide transport for about two thousand marines. The UKs "carriers" pale in comparison not only to our marquee supercarriers, but to our much smaller and less-known closest-equivalents.)
As a rule: just because a country has what they style an "aircraft carrier" do not attribute to that anything we Americans come to associate with the term. When we say "carrier" what we really mean is "supercarrier." Those are all we build. We're the only nation on Earth building them.
- On 3 Jan 2013
in
Senate-Passed Deal Means Higher Tax on 77% of Households,
msilenus said:
It's him, not Bloomberg. The juxtaposition is misleading because the WH promise was about income taxes, and payroll taxes are what went up, but Bloomberg didn't bring the WH into it at all.
No one ever doubted that the payroll taxes were intended to be temporary stimulus, and Obama never represented that they would be permanent. Though I can understand why people might expect that when politicians say a stimulus tax cut is temporary, they are actually angling for it to eventually be made permanent. That has certainly happened, in the past. But Obama's never done that.
- On 1 Jan 2013
in
Governments Worldwide Using Google to Spy On You,
msilenus said:
Personally: I was potty trained before my first memories; so shitting my pants is not within the range of my personal experience. Some of us are later bloomers, I suppose.
This topic is forcing me to develop unpleasant associations with the moniker "SoftShell."
- On 28 Dec 2012
in
Clinton should resign,
msilenus said:
This should be obvious, but: the word "today" when used in an article written in September 2011, refers to a day in September of 2011. The pullout from Iraq was not completed until December of 2011, so troop levels in September of 2011 do not speak to post-withdrawal troop levels at all.
- On 28 Dec 2012
in
Lindsey Graham " I own an AR-15" , "Why should I be stopped buying another!",
msilenus said:
That chart should updated to include all firearm deaths. You shouldn't really compare only firearm homicides to most other things on that chart. That's comparing the major drivers of vehicle deaths (accidents) to a minority contributor to gun deaths (homicides.) I suppose the intent isn't really to inform, though.
Total firearm deaths are north of thirty thousand per year, which puts them on par with most other items on that chart. Firearm deaths would rank above drugs, which are illegal, and only a little below automobiles, which require licenses to operate. Laws get passed to hamper tobacco use all the time.
Perhaps guns should be regulated like cars? We could require prospective owners to pass tests and get licensed. Perhaps a psych test and a gun safety exam. That seems no more difficult than getting a driver's license.
- On 27 Dec 2012
in
Boehner needs to stop bitching and whining and crying over Obama and pass a bill,
msilenus said:
"Boehner and boys" never came back from vacation. Members of the House were told they could expect 48 hours' notice before any votes would be called. No notice has been given, and most of the House is home for the holidays.
- On 27 Dec 2012
in
Clinton should resign,
msilenus said:
"Okay, you've covered your ass now." -George W. Bush
- On 23 Dec 2012
in
Boehner fails, cannot pass his own offer,
msilenus said:
No. When you're only looking at the tax side of the equation, government spending is fixed. You aren't putting any taxed revenue to work, because the government will just borrow the money to spend it if you don't tax it. You're right that much of that money is being hoarded, which is an important consideration in deciding where to tax, but that's not sufficient to make a tax stimulatory.
- On 21 Dec 2012
in
Boehner fails, cannot pass his own offer,
msilenus said:
My advice is to learn to be thrifty because Argentina here we come!
From whence is the right-mediaverse is this meme originating? Beck? Stein? Limbaugh? I've seen it beaten to death elsewhere, and that can't be coincidence.
Just curious.
- On 20 Dec 2012
in
Boehner fails, cannot pass his own offer,
msilenus said:
Thus the Republicans are bluffing without even holding any cards.
That is exactly what bluffing is. If they had something, it would not be a bluff.
- On 20 Dec 2012
in
Boehner needs to stop bitching and whining and crying over Obama and pass a bill,
msilenus said:
(Oops.)
- On 20 Dec 2012
in
Boehner needs to stop bitching and whining and crying over Obama and pass a bill,
msilenus said:
Grover Norquist, who has been instrumental in binding the hands of Republican lawmakers on tax increases, said Boehner's proposal does not raise taxes.
That is an interesting development.