We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, July 29. 2016
Origins of the Moon Walk (with great dancing)
Christianity: Personal sin and "social sins"
I started giving quizzes to my juniors and seniors. I gave them a ten-question American history test...
Federal Appeals Court Rejects Protections For Gay People Under Existing Civil Rights Law
I still do not get why there are special laws for special people
Two separate indicators of climate change suggest that there is a risk of substantial cooling from 2017 onward.
Boudreaux on free trade
Unequal Convention Coverage By Networks
Most vulgar presidential candidate was Bill Clinton, not Trump
Dem convention Fascist and Racist
Hillary Clinton Begins Building Her Coalition - The Democratic nominee for United States president made a play for progressives, moderates, and Independents alike during her address in Philadelphia on Thursday night.
That is not from The Onion
Gen. Mattis: “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you,
Tracked: Jul 31, 09:13
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Re: Free trade.
The author did himself a disservice by choosing to twist the words and intent of those who seemingly oppose free trade. The problem is we don't have free trade we have a very controlled system designed to greatly benefit a few people and greatly harm a lot of people. I embrace free trade, I want free trade but what we have is play to pay and screw the American citizens.
A free trade agreement could be written on a single page but it takes a thousand pages to satisfy everyone who wants special treatment and in return will pay off the bureaucrats and politicians that bring it to them. Give us 'free trade' and throw out the previous trade agreements that made us slaves to China and Mexico.
As a starter I would suggest the following:
Every country trading with us must buy as much from us as they sell to us. Kind of brings "trade" back into "free trade" doesn't it.
All good and services originating outside the U.S. must pay a tax that was avoided by manufacturing outside the U.S. Seems fair to me. If we tax our business at 38% then why not tax foreign products at least 20% of retail value.
Some specific manufacturing capability is essential for our security in the event of war. To that end require that a percentage of specific manufacturing be wholly accomplished within the U.S. That is the factory is her the workers are American and the skills are ours.
Enforce our laws. Deport people who are not legally here. End laws and policies that allow foreign workers to displace American workers. If there are legitimate instances where a foreign worker is necessary place a tax on that labor perhaps $10 an hour worked paid for by the employer to compensate displaced workers.
That would make trade fair.
It's not designed to 'greatly harm' - it's simply designed to benefit a few. 'Unexpected Consequences' result.
The problem is, anything done on a large scale will have 'unexpected consequences' coming along with it. Cars, telephones, the Internet, the logistics chains that allow Wal-Mart to sell cheap bananas year around - there's always 'unexpected consequences'.
But the system adapts, when it's not constrained and prevented from adaptation. When that happens, 'unexpected problems' can really come to the fore...
Bird Dog: I still do not get why there are special laws for special people
Because of, for instance, the long history of race discrimination in defiance of 14th Amendment protections, it was necessary to pass laws that provided protection against racial discrimination. The 14th Amendment specifically states, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Section 5 specifically authorizes Congress to legislate to enact and enforce sections 1-4. Section 1 states in part " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So while Section 5 may make it possible for the Federal government to pass legislation punishing a State or State actor for discriminating on the basis of race, it nowhere states that any particular class can be unequally privileged before the law either.
Absolutely enforce the law but it must be done equally not law for thee and none for me. If it isn't than it is unconstitutional, period. The congress cannot constitutionally pass a law that treats citizens unfairly based on race and the courts cannot constitutionally enforce it. When the Supremes Allow it then it is obviously time for impeachment.
What would be the harm in treating all people equally? And why should anyone alive today be treated special because someone else long dead was treated poorly by another long dead person? That is the definition of racial discrimination. DUH!
Another guy named Dan: So while Section 5 may make it possible for the Federal government to pass legislation punishing a State or State actor for discriminating on the basis of race, it nowhere states that any particular class can be unequally privileged before the law either.
As the discussion concerns laws against discrimination, not affirmative action, your point is off the mark. There are laws against racial discrimination because American society has a long history of racial discrimination. Similarly, laws against LGBT discrimination can be justified due to the long history of discrimination against LGBT persons. However, the court found that current civil rights laws do not protect people from discrimination due to sexual orientation, but that new legislation is required.
Racial discrimination and anti-hate laws are crafted to protect whites as well as blacks and other racial minorities. Laws against discrimination due to sexual orientation can also be crafted to protect everyone.
SweetPea: What would be the harm in treating all people equally?
That would be nice. However, discrimination against entire classes of people is still common in American society; hence the need for anti-discrimination laws.
Zach you are either incredibly naive and stupid or play one on the internet.
You cannot FIX discrimination by passing laws that discriminate! AND the constitution does not allow unequal treatment based on race. But the stupidest idea is that you can somehow fix a past wrong by punishing people who committed no wrong and rewarding people who had no wrong committed against them.
The reason we have these laws is not because of "a long history of racial discrimination". We have these laws because we have a political party that maintains power by pandering to special interest groups by giving them free stuff and special privileges. IF we had an honest Supreme Court they would throw this out.
SweetPea: You cannot FIX discrimination by passing laws that discriminate! AND the constitution does not allow unequal treatment based on race.
Are you really saying the Constitution doesn't allow Congress to pass laws against racial discrimination?
"The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
SweetPea: The reason we have these laws is not because of "a long history of racial discrimination".
Are you really saying the U.S. doesn't have a long history of racial discrimination?
"Are you really saying the Constitution doesn't allow Congress to pass laws against racial discrimination?"
I love it when my opponent in a debate is forced to lie and distort to maintain any chance of winning.
No! What I'm saying is that congress cannot legally pass unconstitutional laws. What they have done is pass laws that ARE racially discriminating. They did it for the worst reasons, i.e. to buy votes. Worse they did it rather than the constitutional choice of equal enforcement of the law regardless of race, period.
"Are you really saying the U.S. doesn't have a long history of racial discrimination?"
No! That's your hook that you are hanging your hat on. Indeed many years ago there was slavery. No former slaves alive today and no slave owners either. So who are you punishing and who are you rewarding?
Equal treatment is the remedy NOT renewed/revenge discrimination and special treatment of a voting block. The lesson you should have learned is that discrimination is divisive and should be avoided. Today there is only ONE race/gender group that can officially be discriminated against; White males. I assume you are now in favor of laws giving them job and school admission preferences for past history of discrimination...
Good. Then we are in agreement. Congress can pass anti-racial discrimination laws. Presumably, it can also pass laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Good. Then we are in agreement. Congress is justified in passing laws against racial discrimination. Presumably, it is also justified in passing laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
You lack reading comprehension too.
Seemingly you do not know what you do not know but choose to expose that eagerly.
Are you saying Congress can't pass anti-racial discrimination laws? Or are you saying Congress can't pass laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation. If you draw a distinction, then why the one but not the other?
In honor of the Navy's latest ship.
No Dames: "You're going to have to beat it"
The ship name is appropriate. I understand it is a troop ship designed to insert men into the back country in case of war. The choice was either Harvey Milk or Ben Dover.
Skyscraper city: how New York was built – in pictures :