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.
Good to hear that American free speech tradition isn't "too deeply unsettling to world order." But wait -- check out the footnote following this paragraph:
See generally Louis Henkin, Gerald L. Neuman, Diane F. Orentlicher & David W. Leebron, Human Rights 564 (1999). Admittedly, in a globalizing world, our exceptional free speech tradition can cause problems abroad, as, for example, may occur when hate speech is disseminated over the Internet. In my view, however, our Supreme Court can moderate these conflicts by applying more consistently the transnationalist approach to judicial interpretation discussed infra Part III.C.
And what is this "transnationalist approach" that can help "moderate these conflicts" caused by American constitutional protection for "hate speech ... disseminated over the Internet"?
Are American housing policies rational? Prof B says no, and I agree. The American Dream isn't home ownership - it's freedom. I am a flat-taxer and opposed on principle to the mortgage interest deduction.
Yes, it discomfits me that Obama seemed eager to disrespect his own country in front of those who, at times, have been equally arrogant, equally dismissive, and certainly more derisive when George Bush was president. But in perilous times, it is best to keep your friends close. And despite a few gaffes (”Austrian” language? Are you fricking kidding me?), Obama’s trip was helpful to our interests and will hopefully pay big dividends in the future.
Barney Frank in his mind thinks he's helping the little guy and that regulation is the way and that's its all the Bush Administration's fault. He also loves labels as seen in about the 3rd minute. I still wonder why he and Dodd aren't hanging from a lamp post.
Kuddos to the brave student for even asking the question. Hope there are more like him.
Nate ... Barney Frank is a famous and incredibly boring gasbag, as you say, but he's learned to play the corrupt politics game, and nothing his constituents learn about him [all kinds of depravities] seems to deter their voting for him. Only one person recently has disconcerted him -- Bill O'Reilly when he interviewed him on his show. I don't know how to call up this interview, but I think there's a Facebook video on it somewhere on the internet. I've never heard O'Reilly so angry. He yelled at him and called him a coward, and Frank yelled back. Very humiliating for him, and a great pleasure for me [yes, I can do schadenfreude just as well as anybody else].
Guidelines become rules become laws. This happens everywhere. When my boss was contemplating the adoption of some "guidelines" that had become popular, I remarked that he should remember to write them on toilet paper, not tablets of stone. Happily, he agreed and we dodged some problems by being flexible.
And then there is "Consensus" ruling. Not always bad (I happen to like [representative] democracy) but sometimes... Continuing in the medical vein - A Severe Case of Mistaken Consensus
An “informational cascade” can trigger some very strange behaviour.