I'm shocked, frankly, to see the White House say this. But it's great to see. People who oppose trade agreements because they hurt jobs should support less regulation of businesses: lower corporate tax rates, fewer regulations, easier compliance with necessary regulations, and delicensing of most occupations.
All that will do far more for American jobs that opposing trade deals (the effect of which on jobs is unclear anyway).
Now, I should point out, that most people arrive at most of their opinions for reasons apart from reason. And people do change their opinions, based on reason, sometimes; but they need to open to changing them, and that openness itself is arrived at through reason.
I remind myself that as frustrating as this can be, it's also a mechanism that has allowed our species to survive. So, there's that.
If he had compared Obama ot Chamberlain, that might be at least defensible. But the comparison to Hitler (or Himmler or INSERT NAZI HERE) ... there's no logical defense possible of the comment itself, and it only makes sense in the context of trying to get attention for himself.
The main point of the article is basically that because some of the rhetoric saying that Reddit should not ban anything sounds vaguely libertarian, that therefore libertarianism isn't coherent, even though libertarianism actually says that Reddit should be able to ban any speech it wants to, and for any reasons it wants to.
When you hold the first GOP debate this year, you say you will have a forum for the candidates not invited to the debate. To increase your ratings and to make it more fair to the one candidate who would have been in the debate if not for Donald Trump's "candidacy," I suggest you add a Wild Card spot to the debate. The forum will be followed by a 10-minute voting period (by Twitter and SMS) and the winner moves immediately on to the debate.
Yes, it won't be fair to the candidates in the debate, who get less exposure than the winner of the forum. But it'd be pretty awesome.
Should you gain the presidency in 2016, and retain both houses of Congress, please reform the tax code as your first order of business. Make the rate flat (maybe with a small handful of well-defined and simple exemptions and deductions), or eliminate it altogether and go to a consumption tax.
We need a massive overhaul, along the lines of Huckabee's FairTax or Paul's flat tax, that will virtually eliminate compliance costs, reduce the tax burden on most people, and reduce federal control over our lives through the thousands of credits and deductions they use to manipulate our behavior.
There's other important issues (setting aside existential threats like nuclear weapons and so on), such as reforming immigration, health insurance, Medicare, education, and Social Security. But none is as important as this. Not only will it immediately increase productivity and net income, it will also make all of those other problems easier to solve in various ways.
So ... go do that.
Stand Your Ground laws do not change the legal justifications for killing. They do not allow anyone to kill. All they do is -- by removing the legal obligation to retreat when threatened -- make it more likely that you will be in a situation where you need to use lethal force to defend yourself. But the circumstances under which such lethal force is legal authorized do not change by virtue of Stand Your Ground laws.
If you could not legally kill someone in a particular situation before SYG was enacted, you also cannot do so afterward.
An example: you're walking on the street, and someone comes right up to you with a knife and threatens you with it. Without SYG, you are legally allowed to shoot them dead. With SYG, you are also legally allowed to shoot them dead. In both cases, you are acting in self-defense from a real and imminent threat on your life.
However, if you were in your car and he were across the street on foot, without SYG, you would be required to drive away. With SYG, you would not be required to drive away. But it doesn't change the fact that you can still only kill the guy if you need to do so to save yourself from that real and imminent threat.
You can argue about the duty to retreat; my view is that if I retreat, the person might harm someone else who is less capable of defending himself than I am, and so I have a duty to my neighbors to not retreat. That right action to take should be seriously considered by each person, and they come up with their own answer that is best for themselves.
But what you cannot reasonably do is claim that SYG provides a license to kill. It doesn't. You may only kill in defense of imminent serious bodily harm to yourself or others, with or without SYG.
(Now, it may be true that some specific statutes have specific language that do modify the legal authorizations for using lethal force, but to the extent that they do, they are not SYG laws. It's like if we have a marijuana legalization law that also allowed you to use heroin, and someone said "marijuana laws allow people to use heroin." No, that's not how it works.)
But, he says, it's our right and obligation to segregate you from the normal community for the duration of the conflict with these terrorists.
He really said that, and appears to have meant it: internment camps for disloyal Americans. Because it's your right to be disloyal, but we can still lock you up for it.
Stop pretending that there is a distinction between "manmade" and "natural." If a bird's nest is natural, because it was created using materials from nature by a creature existing from nature, then so is the Large Hadron Collider.
The only thing "artificial" or "not natural" here is the distinction between "manmade" and "natural."
He types all day, talks on the phone
One day he looks over his screen
And stares at the people across the street
Then something happens, I'm not sure what
It's not important to the story, but
It makes him think about his life
About his kids and second wife
I've got a few pages written already
And I'm working on it every Thursday night
The plot is coming along real well
I just need to get the characters right
That's my novel idea
That's my novel idea
But is that true? There's another prize that is coming up much sooner than the nomination: participation in the debates. The top 10 candidates will be in the first big debate, on Fox News. The nomination is only indirectly related to the poll results.
So the polls do not tell me that Trump is the favorite to win the nomination, only that he is a favorite to participate in the debate. If I didn't have a favorite candidate, I'd pick Trump, just because I want to see him in the debate.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is one of the most hardcore right-wing extremists in America.
False. Not even remotely true. He doesn't have any views that are "extremist" on the right.
His slash-and-burn policies have gutted Wisconsin workers' collective bargaining rights
Simon is being extremely dishonest here: Walker's reforms were only about government employees. And far from being "extreme," many pro-union folks, including FDR himself, agreed with Walker's views on this.
defunded Planned Parenthood
Again, this is only true insofar as it relates to state government funds. And this is not remotely "extreme."
The article gets stupider, but don't bother reading it. Just realize that Rolling Stone is not getting any better, after publishing proven lies about vaccines and mercury, about how Bush "stole" Ohio in 2004, about college rape allegations, and so on.
I tried to port my home number from Vonage to you. I spent many hours on the phone trying to get it to work. It never did. A dozen different people on your end tried to help me over a half dozen or so phone calls, and you couldn't do this simple thing.
And not for nothing, but probably half the time I was on the phone with the T-Mobile reps, I literally could not understand what they were saying. They all had thick accents that sounded Indian to me, and over a low-quality audio signal like a phone, it just doesn't work well. I had to ask them to repeat themselves many times. It's a terribly poor customer experience.
AT&T did this task for me in three days, with two quick followup phone calls: once to tell me I needed a new SIM card (which I picked up for free at an AT&T store), and once to activate the card and test the line. It took a few minutes for the port to switch over, but then it worked like a champ.
I am not a huge fan of AT&T, but ... it's kinda like, years ago, when I got fed up with DirecTV, so I switched to cable. Oops. It's the "grass is always greener" scenario. What you have might suck in various ways, but is the alternative necessarily better? In the case of DirecTV and AT&T, in my experience, no.
I just gave you money to port my old home phone to Google Voice. Unbeknownst to me, you changed the service since I last used it, such that every time someone calls me, every device I have shows a Google Hangouts alert. I never, ever, want this.
And there is literally no way to turn this off, except to not use Hangouts or Google Voice.
And what makes this even dumber is that my iPhone is already allowing me to answer the incoming call on all my devices. So I get my phone, iPad, and Mac all ringing for both the call and Hangouts simultaneously, just for one call.
This is incredibly stupid, and apparently this has been broken for awhile now. I can see how many people would want this feature, but it's also obvious that many people would not.
Google: please fix it.
I believe that engineers and product folks at Apple and Google don't actually use all their own software features.
This letter claims that Eyman "opposes democracy," because he wants a minority of the voters to be able to prevent a majority from raising taxes. But he doesn't: he wants a majority of the voters to make a rule for the legislature. And a majority of the voters did do that. And that rule would have stuck, except that a majority of the Supreme Court of Washington said that you need a constitutional amendment, which requires a supermajority of the legislature.
You get that? This guy is criticizing Eyman for saying we should have a supermajority of the legislature to raise taxes, but that rule was only shot down because the Court said you need a supermajority of the legislature to agree to it. So no matter which side you're on, you are in favor of a supermajority being required to prevent the other guys from doing what you don't want done.
So that is what Eyman is doing now: he got a constitutional amendment initiative on the ballot (sort of*), which would require a supermajority of the legislature to say that in the future, only a supermajority of the legislature may raise taxes. And a majority of the voters must agree with it.
It's amazing that The Olympian even printed this bizarre letter, that literally gets all the salient facts wrong.
*You can't put a constitutional amendment on the ballot -- it has to go through the legislature first -- so Eyman cleverly put an initiative on the ballot that says a tax increase would be eliminated unless a constitutional amendment requiring a 2/3 majority in the legislature to raise taxes is passed by the legislature and proposed to the people on the ballot.
Encryption is here to stay. You can't get at the bad guy's information if he encrypts it. And if you get American companies to give you a back door, or "front door," then the bad guys will get their encryption somewhere else.
We already went through this in the 90's. I can still put an algorithm in a few lines of code on the front of a t-shirt that is virtually unbreakable to anyone, including the government. Let's not revisit the discussion, because the answer hasn't changed.
What matters, and what I have a problem with, is how that symbolic label "civil marriage" is used by government, specifically, in that some rights and privileges between consensual unions of people are reserved only for married couples: not that there is a natural right to have your marriage recognized by government, but that if some people are granted that right, then it's unfair to exclude other people. I do believe it is wrong, and should be fixed (and in Washington, has been fixed). Government shouldn't pick and choose how personal relationships legally stand before government.
My views haven't changed. Unfortunately, neither have the government's, and we still have government excluding some personal relationships from marriage.
However, it is also true that many people who oppose this decision do not give a single thought to whether it was decided properly, and only oppose the outcome. And that is just as wrong, and worse, it's hypocritical, if you claim the judges should follow the law only because you disagree with how they ruled.
So, don't do that. You can bemoan gay marriage if you oppose gay marriage, but don't criticize the decision legally unless you understand and address the legal basis for the decision. That just makes you look bad.
I still think the main problem is that people put the original Matrix film on too high a pedestal. But if you lower it down to just being a fun sci-fi thriller, that is only moderately philosophically interesting and not some mind-blowing event in cinematic history, then the sequels fit much better.
I also rewatched The Animatrix, in between films 1 and 2. It's still not very good (some parts are good, some less so).
I am unimpressed with the revamps from Marvel and DC. Both have introduced many simply incomprehensible series. Marvel seems to be having manatees write their storylines, and DC is ... well, I can understand wanting "something for everyone," and maybe the problem is that the new stuff is just not for me, but from my perspective they are just ruining established titles and characters by making them silly. Black Canary as a rock singer? Meh. And the artwork is just unappealing ... again, to me.
Maybe I am just an old traditionalist fuddy-duddy. And by traditionalist, I mean mid-2000s. I like old comics, but I think we were in a Golden Age (to use an overloaded term) of comics in the 2000s. And now everything has to be avant garde and hip and different, instead of good.
I don't mind different. I love The Manhattan Projects and Saga. Fraction's Hawkeye is fantastic. There's different because you have talent and vision and creativity, and then there's different because you can be, or you feel you should be. And that's what the new DC feels like to me.
If the correct legal decision had been handed down, we'd have years more of angsting over this issue. I think that is a big part of why decisions like this happen, which is a shame.
We still have a ways to go to get actual equality. Government currently disallows close-relation marriages, not to mention multiple-partner marriages.
And some states still require you to, essentially, have a romantic relationship with your partner (by virtue of requiring causes for divorce, some of which are related to infidelity and so on), which is a clear violation of equality, too: why can't lifelong best friends get the benefits of a "marriage"? What business does government have in telling us the nature of our relationships?
So there is a ways to go to get marriage equality, which does not exist today, anywhere in the U.S. But the majority of the issue is done with. We can move on.
BTW, a modification of the Kennedy's decision:
This dynamic also applies to [sibling] marriage. It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of [sibling] couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality. Here the marriage laws enforced by the respondents are in essence unequal: [sibling] couples are denied all the benefits afforded to [married] couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to [sibling] couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on [sibling couples] serves to disrespect and subordinate them.
Please do not claim that the U.S. now legally has "marriage equality." It is a lie. If it were true, then any two unmarried consenting adults could marry each other. But they cannot, due to anti-incest laws in every part of this country.
I am not pro-incest (weird that I should even have to say that), but I am pro-liberty, and I am pro-honesty. And those who claim we have marriage equality now, are spreading blatant falsehoods.
Rather than provide marriage equality to all, what we really did was give preferred legal status to a favored group, while still maintaining discriminatory policies toward disfavored groups.
So do not say we have marriage equality, and do not say this is about equal protection of the law, because it's very clearly no such thing.
I could go on about how the equal protection claim made in today's ruling doesn't make much legal sense, but you can read the dissents for that. I only mention it to point out that in every way, this decision was top-down: coming up with the preferred conclusion, and then finding ways to legally justify it. It's not about rights, it's not about equality, and it's not about the rule of law. It is solely about simply wanting gay marriage to be recognized. That's all it is.
And that should be decided by legislatures, not courts.
My view, in case you are unaware, but may glean from the above, is that we should have true equality: any two unmarried consenting adults should be allowed to get the same legal recognition as any other "married" couple.
I further think that governments should cease to use the word "marriage" -- due to the societal baggage and dispute over the term, combined with the fact that social/religious marriage and civil marriage are literally two different institutions with the same name -- and convert all marriages to "civil unions."
And I further believe that this should be done by state legislatures, but that if the Court is going to enforce it on the basis of rights, then it needs to actually be for everyone, not a select group.
So do not paint me as anti-gay-marriage. I am anti-selectively-choosing-gay-couples-to-recognize-as-married, and I am anti-court-enforcement-of-marriage-definitions. I am therefore against this decision. If I had my way, all couples -- including gay couples -- would be 100% equal in the eyes of the law, to all other couples. But we do not have that.
But it's not true. What they really mean, at most, is that on average, a child who grew up poor in Snohomish County had, per year there, about $190 more in income at age 26, compared with the national average.
Those are not the same thing. They say literally say, "a poor child here earns this much more money," but that isn't true.
They have two main problems: first, they are wording it almost as though it is predictive, when it's only descriptive. Second, they are talking about the children as individuals, instead of averages.
Yes, many of those people exist. Probably millions of them. You can't wish it away. Truth is stubborn, and the fact is that when most people I see fly the rebel flag, they have not the tiniest sense of racist or hateful association with that act. You have that association with their act, but they do not.
If you think that the people who fly the flag are hateful and racist, you are wrong, you are ignorant, and you are incorrectly and irresponsibly fostering hatred against them.
Oh, but maybe it is OK to foster hatred against Southerners. They are just redneck racist hicks, right?
Feel free to have your own feelings about the flag. And the people who like the flag should respect your feelings about it, and they usually don't. But you should respect theirs, and you don't.
All y'all suck.
My thoughts exactly. Andrew Jackson is an obvious choice for removal. So why Hamilton, and not Jackson? I seriously wonder if it is because Jackson founded, and was the first President representing, the Democratic Party.
If you lived in the South in the 1860s, and you were not a slave, you probably would have been on the side of the Confederacy. Even if you weren't white. And maybe even if you were a slave.
I totally get wanting to diminish symbols of the Confederacy. But now we are seeing people wanting to get rid of the names of people from the Confederacy, such as Robert E. Lee. Lee was a great man, and certainly far more worthy of praise than many people who receive similar honor.
San Diego has a lot of schools named after people. John Adams legally defended the British soldiers who committed the Boston Massacre. Albert Einstein helped create the atomic bomb. Alexander Graham Bell dabbled in eugenics. Daniel Boone killed Native Americans. Cesar Chavez was a friend of Ferdinand Marcos' regime.
This is only a small alphabetical sampling of the evils behind the names in San Diego schools.
The funny part is that the first three sentences of the article each contain significant lies.
* The Supreme Court is not making any decision to "take health care away" from anyone. That is not a part of the decision at all.
* The premise of the argument is not that "most of the text of the Affordable Care Act does not count," but that the government is incorrectly interpreting it.
* They do not "claim [that] a single sentence of the law must be plucked out of context;" again, they claim it should be interpreted differently than the government thinks it should.
ProTip: if you're going to accuse others of lying, don't start off by lying.
And if we legalized drugs and automatic weapons, we might save even more lives. Or more might die. Supposition of outcomes makes for terrible public policy.
And let us not forget that if we banned free speech, we might save a lot of lives, too, including perhaps all the lives in the Charleston shooting, since this was mostly about pushing, and enacting, a racist ideology.
We've gone over this before: symbols have no inherent meaning. Everyone has their own meaning for a given symbol.
It is true that many well-meaning people view the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism and hatred.
It is also true that many well-meaning people view the Confederate flag as merely a symbol of pride.
If you think that someone necessarily, or even probably, has racist motivations simply because they fly the Confederate flag, you are incorrect. Fix that.
On the other hand, if you think that your pure motivations for flying the Confederate flag justify the harm that it contributes to -- the hurt feelings, the societal division, and so on -- you are also incorrect. Fix that.
The blame for the division is really primarily on the people who see the flag as racist, because they are the ones who are incorrectly conflating the symbol with its meanings. But the people who see the flag as simply about pride, and keep flying it, are also to blame because they can simply give up the symbol and still hold on to the meaning, and they choose to not do that.
I am not in South Carolina, and I have no strong feelings one way or another about the flag. I recognize the fact that it is the intent of the people, not the symbol itself, that is important. I could not care less whether they fly the Confederate flag, because I have no reason to think that the people doing so are racist, or intend to send a racist message.
What I do care about is that we learn to live together in peace. So either the one side needs to learn to look past symbols and see intent, or the other side needs to learn to express themselves with symbols that won't be misunderstood. Either way is fine with me. Keep the flag or lose it, but find ways to not hate the people around you.
(I also care about people misrepresenting how symbols work, and saying that any symbol has a universal or necessary or permanent meaning. It's just not true, and it's the root of much of our misunderstanding and strife. Also, in fact, the intent of the people who invented the flag has literally no bearing on the intent of the people flying it today.)
It is hard to reconcile Bill Clinton's position that "you can't have people walking around with guns" with the Second Amendment's declaration that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Even when they concede a constitutional right to own a gun, Democrats tend to ignore that second part.
American Pharoah very well might not run the same kind of race against Secretariat as it did against these other horses.
In any "distance" race (a race where you cannot sprint the entire time), you pace yourself, usually based on who your competition is and what they are doing.
Unless they actually run against each other, you can't know which would've won.
Maybe Secretariat was a faster horse; I have no way of knowing. But these two results cannot show that.
I am not saying that Obama has no argument for violating the law (although I don't think he does). I am saying that it is absolutely clear that he is violating the letter of the law, and that alone justifies the Court taking up the case, and to say the Court shouldn't have taken it up is to say that there should be no judicial review of his actions.
And perhaps worse, if you think that the law means what it says, and the result of that is something that Obama dislikes, then you are the one "twisting" the words of the law. You are a Bad American who hates poor people. You are a "cynic," and "the ground has shifted beneath" you. Your "stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply."
Or, we just believe in the rule of law, and disagree with you about how to properly interpret it.
Nah. That couldn't be it. It has to be an issue of morality and righteousness. You're with him, or you want poor people to lack health care.
Remember when Obama said that he wanted to bring this country together and set aside false dichotomies? That was great.
So, I'll let two writers say it for me.
"The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him." -- Proverbs 18:17
"You're on the Island of Conclusions."
"But how did we get here?" asked Milo.
"You jumped, of course," explained Canby. "That's the way most everyone gets here. It's really quite simple: every time you decide something without having a good reason, you jump to Conclusions whether you like it or not. It's such an easy trip to make that I've been here hundreds of times."
"But this is such an unpleasant-looking place," Milo remarked.
"Yes, that's true," admitted Canby; "it does look much better from a distance."
-- The Phantom Tollbooth, Norton Juster
AFP from one Mac, to another. Same OS version. Three directories on the same volume. One file, with a hard link (`ln A/foo B/`). Move the file from one directory to another. Moving foo from A to C works. But if moving foo from B to A ... it goes to A, but then C's foo goes to B.
It's magic. Or something.
Moving the file in the Terminal, or on the local host (instead of via AFP), works fine.
Of course, it's a lie. Republicans are not trying to stop any citizens from voting, except for felons who have lost their right to vote. Period, end of story. It's a lie. It's broadly believed, but there's zero truth to it.
What is true is that some campaigns (like Barack Obama's campaign in his run for Congress) do prevent people from voting, but what Clinton is dishonestly referring to are efforts to increase voting integrity. Requiring ID and prior registration and regular voter roll purges do not prevent any legal voter from voting; they do help decrease the level and likelihood of fraudulent voting, as well as simply clean up the records.
But to the main point veiled beneath her lie: yes, we should not have everyone voting. So what part of democracy am I "afraid" of?
I'll answer it this way: politicians often decry the apathetic voter who doesn't vote, but in my view, even worse is the ignorant voter who does vote. Ignorance and apathy are both problems, but at least the apathetic voter isn't trying to force anything on the rest of us. Every other year we "Rock The Vote" with people who don't even know the difference between expenditures and revenues, who are trying to tell the rest of the country what the government should be spending money on.
I do not favor excluding citizens from voting for ignorance, but I do want people to opt-in to voting, rather than having it be automatic registration, or, worse, mandated. It shows some basic level of knowledge and engagement. If you can't be bothered to register, then how much do you really care about voting, or how much do you really know about any of the issues?
So now I answer Hillary Clinton with a question: because it is so easy to vote in this country, what is she so afraid of in keeping voting limited to citizens who simply choose to do it?
I kinda hate FIFA. I certainly hate that FIFA puts the World Cup in a ridiculous place like the Arabian peninsula. But it seems to me more that this "scandal" is out of spite, than out of legitimate government interest in any actual wrongdoing by FIFA officials.
A reporter who has been calling out FIFA corruption for years said "These scum have stolen the people’s sport. They’ve stolen it, the cynical thieving bastards." And I think that's the real point. It's not about the law, it's about the fact that they consider soccer, and the World Cup, theirs, and the primary stewards of that sport haven't acted in their interests.
I am not saying FIFA officials didn't commit crimes; I am saying that everything I've heard shouldn't be a crime. If they want to accept payoffs for where to put their private events, so be it. People do that all the time. If you pay me enough, I'll quit my job and come work for you. How is this different, other than the fact that you don't care where I work, and you do care where the World Cup is held?