In 1793, Rousseau had been dead for fifteen years.
— Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) March 20, 2021
ADDED: Turley took down the tweet Kruse mocked. He's reposted like this, so that it no longer depicts Rousseau as speaking of "eating the rich" in 1793.Rousseau wanted to eat the rich’s braaaaaains
— Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) March 20, 2021
For identity politics, there is no surer bet than attacking the “super rich.” Since philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau spoke of “eating the rich” before the Reign of Terror, politicians have had an insatiable appetite for class warfare politics.https://t.co/nBIE0zW0iJ
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 20, 2021
पोस्ट्स
२२० टिप्पण्या:
220 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»In a sense, Rousseau was still alive in 1793 as Hegel, Kant, Freud, Marx, etc. are alive today- this is the immortal power of the written word.
If Warren wants to tax persons isn’t there a fortiori a stronger case for taxing tax-sheltered endowment funds? Confiscate the Harvard, Yale, Middlebury etc funds first, as a gesture of sincerity and commitment, and then we can talk.
eh. The wealthiest among us DO have obligations. Be nice if they would act as charitable as they could without government force.
Alas- the democrat party sweet spot for tax hikes is middle to upper. The ultra Bozos-Buffet contingent are safe.
They attack the “super rich” but the super rich know very well that everything aimed at them will fall on the classes below them, mostly because the super rich are the main constituency of the Democrat Party.
I think this is my best poem ever:
Lizzie Warren took a tax
Gave your paycheck forty whacks,
When she saw what she had done,
She gave your checkbook forty one.
tim in vermont said...
They attack the “super rich” but the super rich know very well that everything aimed at them will fall on the classes below them, mostly because the super rich are the main constituency of the Democrat Party.
Yup. And the super rich will use Democrat tax lawyers to find the Democrat tax loopholes that they paid for with political donations.
Disappointing that Turley deleted the tweet and then put back up a corrected one. Bad twitter practice. What was an over-sight concerning a side issue (when Rousseau said it is much less important than that Rousseau said it) becomes the thing that will be remembered. His point is lost as Turley discovers the Streisand Effect.
The super rich have found their answer: attack the middle.
"Disappointing that Turley deleted the tweet and then put back up a corrected one. Bad twitter practice."
Agreed. Deleting it and replacing it gives ones enemies even more ammunition. There is nothing dishonorable in being wrong about a fact, especially one this minor since Rousseau's influence on the French Revolution is well acknowledged by historians.
The super rich spent 2020 voting Democrat and supporting vote fraud.
If the US Gov't wants to impose a 100% wealth tax on every single individual, family, or trust with more than $1 billion in assets, I'll happily support it.
Sieze all of Zuckerberg's, Bezos' and Dorsey's stock, and resell it on the public market.
Sure, that will totally crash the stock market value of FB, Amazon, & Twitter. Why should I care?
They've gone to war against 1/2 the country. I see no reason at all why we shouldn't go to war against them
I wouldn't have known Rousseau was dead in 1793.
While this is only a rumor I am making up, George Romero was inspired by Rousseau, too.
"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally"-Lincoln
Well composed, tim in vermont.
Philosophers are a useless bunch if ever there was a useless bunch.
At least we can still make fun of zombies. Although I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point, someone starts complaining about the living using their "Alive Privilege" to actively keep the undead down.
I for one, love our billionaire overlords. We should never attack them, or wonder if they've grown too powerful. Instead, we should be grateful for the wonderful blessings they've bestowed on us. Nor should we tax them, because that would be wrong.
Remember our current political and economic situation is the best of all possible worlds. Nothing of any significance needs to be changed. If something is wrong, that's because we haven't done enough of what we're already doing.
BTW, I love having how Liz Warren, the head of the Senate Banking committee, pops up and rages against "Income inequality". hahahaha.
I just read Russell's introduction to Hume and have his chapter on Rosseau teed up. Its seems the two were friends for a while until Rosseau's "Persecution mania" forced him to break off relations.
Remember - the unexamined life saves on Doctor's bills.
@rcocean,
Its seems the two were friends for a while until Rosseau's "Persecution mania" forced him to break off relations.
Rousseau drove everyone who befriended him up the wall. He wasn't a very pleasant or moral person. He was much like Peter Abelard in that regard, who was also a bit of a rotter.
"Since philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau spoke of “eating the rich” during the Reign of Terror in 1793...."
rousseau was quoted by the revolutionary (insurrectionist?) Pierre Gaspard Chaumette in 1793 in a speech to the city.
I have more respect for Napoleon than for the entire coven of French philosophers who incited the FR.
The Democrats. Rich folks who rail against rich folks while farming the poor and abusing the middle class.
The Billionaire tax will never happen.
The left's sweet spot is ordinary wealth created by ordinary people. You know - the deplorables.
Jack Dorsey is exempt. That's his sweet kick back.
The left TAX rape to punish and control. That money is already wasted.
tim in vermont @ 11:42: "...best poem ever..." Absolutely. No question: thread winner.
Thanks!
I wouldn't have known Rousseau was dead in 1793.
Me neither. I wasn't even born yet.
The left attack the super rich -- and then never follow thru with hiking Billionaire+ taxes.
If there were only some say to punish Trump and let the Dorsey-Bozos-Buffet-Gates-contingent off the hook.
"For identity politics, there is no surer bet than attacking the “super rich.”"
It's not really identity politics, just good old lefty redistribution politics. Which of course requires total control of society and of the means of coercion, to crush any resistance if necessary. Violence or the threat thereof has been the prog MO since 1789.
Of course, American progs like Warren are particularly dishonest. Europeans make the poor and the middle class pay their share.
Bezos
There's probably some confusion between Rousseau and Robespierre, but it seems like an elementary mistake that a commentator shouldn't have made. Whether you know it or not, it's not so hard to look up.
Also, is it really true about identity politics hating the super-rich? Identity politics seems more like a distraction that keeps people from hating the rich too much. Corporations encourage a milder form of identity politics to prevent dissidents from focusing on them and attacking them directly. Every smug fat cat puts out a BLM sign or banner and says, "We aren't the problem, it's those other people." It's easy to hate Warren, but it's not identity politics that's driving her.
So much for Turley. Kruse may be an example of people who would have been old style economic leftists in the old days but have swallowed and digested (or been swallowed and digested by) today's race-oriented left. Staying with old school leftism might have been more honorable, and certainly would have been more interesting.
Kruse is also a bit of a piss-ant. Two years ago, he had this massive Twitter battle over whether JFK was a conservative, tweet after tweet. The fight generated far more heat than light. It was like two rams repeatedly crashing into each other. There were ways to resolve the question, but not if you were more intent on winning than on understanding just what was involved.
Seen on the rear window of a van in WV:
"Yeet the Rich!" Also, a Clergy bumper sticker.
I don't understand...
The Hillbilly Elegy writer just told us the well to do mostly back the democrats already. Why would Pocahontas want to alienate the people they need to stay in power?
Unless they cooked up something to make themselves... invincible?
"A Pro-Biden group, operating with the White House's blessing, plans to raise unlimited funds — and grant donors anonymity — as it prepares to promote and protect the president's agenda from the outside."
It's not like the press is breathlessly waiting to report anything negative about the Biden White House... So... foreign money might very well make native donors less important to "promote and protect" the Kamala/Biden agenda.
"It's people like that who make you realize how little you've accomplished. It's a sobering thought, for example, that when Mozart was my age, he had been dead for two years." - Tom Lehrer
The key problem of economics that the lefties fail to grasp is that wealth is not finite. It is created. And the creation is often financed by those whose assets, at the margins, can be put at substantial risk of loss without changing the lifestyle of the investor. That is how wealth is created. A dollar taken from a rich person by rapacious gub’ment does nothing more than support the beer and pork rinds business. Whereas, the rich person would put that dollar at risk and potentially create actual wealth for him/herself and for a great many others. The wealth pie grows.
Lefties see it as a zero sum game.
- Krumhorn
Why would any one on the right be opposed to Warren's wealth tax? Those zillionaires aren't on their side. Of course , the zillionaires would find a way out of paying.
Lem - geez.
Democrat party is all power and money - all money and power. and the corrupt press shield it all.
The Hillbilly Elegy writer just told us the well to do mostly back the democrats already. Why would Pocahontas want to alienate the people they need to stay in power?
Warren proposes new regulations on the securities market and then gets contributions from financial interests because she will be the one writing the loopholes.
It will be the same way with taxes: higher rates, but also ways of getting around them. It's also likely that whatever she wants could be watered down or not even pass.
Anyway, she and the DNC probably aren't worried too much about how this will affect their power.
If the rich are so hated by everyone, why does everyone want to be one, know one, marry one, work for one, or in some cases, blow one?
From colored people (i.e. low-information attribute) to people of color (i.e. color bloc, identity defined by skin color, racism). On step forward, two steps backward.
Diversity dogma is formulated on the basis of class-based summary judgments, too many labels, and affirmative discrimination.
Anyway, she and the DNC probably aren't worried too much about how this will affect their power.
The democratic/dictatorial duality pursuing a consolidation of capital and control. They expect to float to the top.
Can they abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too? Maybe. There are diverse precedents.
I can sort of understand Turley's mistake. This is most likely not be something Rousseau said. It was something someone said during the Revolution and attributed to Rousseau.
Wikipedia:
According to historian Adolphe Thiers, the President of the Paris Commune, Pierre Gaspard Chaumette, gave a speech to the city on 14 October 1793 (during the Reign of Terror), in which he said:
Rousseau était peuple aussi, et il disait: Quand le peuple n'aura plus rien à manger, il mangera le riche.
Rousseau, who was also one of the people, said: When the people shall have no more to eat, they will eat the rich!
If you're playing along at home, Thiers was also the political leader who crushed the 1871 Commune, but Chaumette was for a time the head of the earlier 1789-1795 Commune.
Mike Wallens said...
Why would any one on the right be opposed to Warren's wealth tax? Those zillionaires aren't on their side. Of course , the zillionaires would find a way out of paying.
********************
* Ya think maybe it's because "the right" isn't driven by pathological hatred and envy of people who have more wealth than they do?
* Ya think maybe because it would be unenforceable? How would "wealth" be defined and quantified? Is real property the same as intellectual property? If a corporation's book value of X, and it's Market Value is Y, and then its stock tanks, what's wealth tax value then?
If Barbra Streisand's wealth in 2020 is X, and she pays the wealth tax, what's the basis for assessing her taxable wealth n 2021: is it X minus the tax she she paid, plus any change in value of her net worth?
Will personal wealth be treated the same as one's wealth as a shareholder in a corporation? Bottom line: sheer nonsense, a system that would make our current hideously complex tax code look like the Ten Commandments.
* Ya think maybe because it's unconstitutional?
https://www.axios.com/wealth-tax-warren-constitution-8c098c0b-7dc4-48ab-a154-d578aec20d0d.html
.
"Article I of the Constitution, Section 9, bars any "capitation, or other direct, tax" — unless such a tax is levied in direct proportion to the number of people who live in each state.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1895 that a federal income tax was therefore unconstitutional. The 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, made income tax constitutional, but many scholars believe it doesn't cover a wealth tax.
Even some proponents of a wealth tax, such as French economist Thomas Piketty, worry about its constitutionality. “I realize that this is unconstitutional, but constitutions have been changed throughout history," he said in 2014. "That shouldn’t be the end of the discussion.”"
****************************
or in some cases, blow one
Take a knee and be VP.
The other BIG lie. When you hear news reports that democrats are going to sue Facebook and Google for something.. anti-trust or whatever- No. They are not.
More gaslighting.
"Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities”
A different French guy, who used the pen name Voltaire, wrote that in 1765. He's dead now too, but the lefties are having a good amount of success in following his dictum.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2019/08/20/how-elizabeth-warren-built-a-12-million-fortune/
Elizabeth Warren has been a senator since 2012. Before that she was a lawyer earning far more than the national average. She never lived a day in her life in poverty and now is a millionaire. I don’t mean her husband, not her family, she is a millionaire in her own right.
What is she going to give up? The answer is nothing, because she is a phony and a liar as are the majority of elected officials, government bureaucrats, members of the media, college presidents and all people who work in the field of ‘diversity’.
Google-Dorsey-LeftwingDemocrat-Google-YouTube - REMOVED All the video compilations of Bernie saying "MILLIONAIRES & BILLIONAIRES" After we all found out Bernie is a millionaire.
The corrupt left protect their hypocrites.
"A dollar taken from a rich person by rapacious gub’ment does nothing more than support the beer and pork rinds business."
I understand that a lot of the money the Treasury is helicoptering down on us is being used to buy guns. And ammo. It's hard to get ammo any more at any price. People seem to be expecting a long war.
Antifa is well funded. Really well funded. Dark money dark web. But who?
Heh. Elizabeth Warren. Remember her? Me neither.
If the rich are so hated by everyone, why does everyone want to be one, know one, marry one, work for one, or in some cases, blow one?
It's not so much hate as greed and jealousy for most people. Everybody is too busy wanting to be the Kardashians to spend the time they should be in appreciating just how good they have it. One of the main themes I return to while teaching is just how lucky all of my students are. I try to get them to appreciate the fact that because they were born in, or near, the United States in the 21st century, they will have longer and better lives, and a higher standard of living, than 99% of all humans who have lived.
I've seen some discussion of a theory that jealousy is actually a genetic behavioral trait, one that gave our ancestors an evolutionary advantage. The argument goes:
Grog figures out that if he ties a rock to his club, it is easier and safer to kill animals, so he is a more successful hunter.
Some of the other hunters notice this, and want to be as successful as him. (jealousy) They watch him, and learn to tie rocks to their clubs also.
Then Blarn's rock one day breaks in the middle of a kill, and he learns that sharp rocks work better. Soon the jealous hunters are copying Blarn.
The jealous hunters bring home more meat, live longer, have more children, and more of their children grow strong and survive childhood.
"They attack the 'super rich' but the super rich know very well that everything aimed at them will fall on the classes below them, mostly because the super rich are the main constituency of the Democrat Party."
Oh, fucking please. The super rich--individuals and corporate entities--are the main constituents of both parties. Any criticism of politics that assumes or pretends another reality is a lie (or a delusion).
It’s unconstitutional but there is a work around. Pass a law that everyone needs a franu, which is made only by Franu Inc, the patent holder. They charge some people twenty bucks other people twenty million, and still others 20 billion. They are a private company, they can do what they like. Franu Inc then donates to the treasury, minus a handling fee of course, and a donation to Sen Warren’s PAC, natch.
Easy peasy, strongarm squeezy.
Good one Tim.
Thing is. This is the typical leftist democrat ruse. It's the middle who always bears the brunt. Now. How many democrats have ever proposed tax cuts as a solution?
This is like that time in 1951 when Samuel Clemens said reports of his demise had been greatly exaggerated.
Another way to produce more socially-productive tax revenues would be to cut the military and intelligence budgets by no less than 90%. (Take all the unaccounted for funds in the various "black" budgets.) The would free up a tremendous amount of tax funds they're already collecting to be applied to purposes useful to American citizens.
In short: Less Guns! More Butter!
"This is like that time in 1951 when Samuel Clemens said reports of his demise had been greatly exaggerated."
To be fair, in 1951 Clemons was dead.
“They attack the 'super rich' but the super rich know very well that everything aimed at them will fall on the classes below them, mostly because the super rich are the main constituency of the Democrat Party."
Can you make up your minds already? We hear that Democrats are people too lazy to hold a job and always looking for some sort of handout (Welfare Queens). In the next breath we are told that Democrats are the super rich elitists.
As Republicans become the party of the deplorable rural poor-to-middle and Democrats become the party of the smug urban upper-middle and ruling class, I would expect the Right to become more receptive to eating the truly rich. They already hate you; why not return the favor?
The super rich--individuals and corporate entities--are the main constituents of both parties.
Cookie is right. Not that politics hasn't always been self-serving but, today, even the pretense of public service is gone.
Speaking of rich folk- which charity do you think P*Biden will donte his 1st 1/4 salary$ to?
I’ll take my answer off the air...
Unless you’re Trump.
It's not so much hate as greed and jealousy for most people.
They are green with envy and green about class-based politics.
"Can you make up your minds already?”
Top and bottom vs the middle is as old as politics. The Democrats have just gotten especially blatant about serving their rich masters in recent years.
"The super rich--individuals and corporate entities--are the main constituents of both parties.”
The super rich Republicans definitely made up the core of the never Trump movement. He was using supply and demand to drive up the price of labor, for God’s sake! Can’t have that!
Bagoh asks: If the rich are so hated by everyone, why does everyone want to be one
Not everyone. I've never had any desire to be rich.
Until 2008 the median household income of Democrats and Republicans were essentially identical. Since then, as the Brookings Institution documents, “With their output surging as a result of the big-city tilt of the decade’s ‘winner-take-most’ economy, Democratic districts have seen their median household income soar in a decade—from $54,000 in 2008 to $61,000 in 2018. By contrast, the income level in Republican districts began slightly higher in 2008, but then declined from $55,000 to $53,000.”
As the two parties switch positions you'll see Democrats resist paying their full share of taxes (as they already did when the federal government eliminated deductions for high state taxes) and eventually pay lip service to a hint of fiscal discipline.
Price of gas, something that affects every working person, has gone up 50% since Biden took over, shut down Keystone and all kinds of oil development in the US. If that’s not sticking it to the poor to help the rich, I don’t know what it?
Why did Biden send all those troops into Syria? Well, it’s about their oil. We need to fight for their oil, and leave our oil workers without jobs and force working people to fork over more of their paychecks to gill their cars.
Cook almost, a week ago or so, had a second of clarity regarding the difference between Biden’s warlike and reckless attitude on the world stage, and Trump’s attempts to promote peace, but then he remembered that he never questions his beliefs.
The SuperRich ARE the Democrats, which makes this an exercise in flatulence.
Those who think this is fine will, I'm sure, not be surprised when those same tax Gods come for for their wealth as well. You see, 'wealth' is a relative state. And while it's easy to call Jeff Bezos too wealthy for reality, Jeff Bezos is not going to give his up willingly and certainly not in the quantities Lizzy is projecting. (her math is notoriously preposterous.) And government, once they get a taste, never back off. They come for more. And you...and You, and YOU TOO are in their sights.
Like your life? Think your time of life has value? Your government thinks your time of life is theirs to value and theirs to manage. When they lay claim on a person's income, they are laying claim to that person's time of life. I personally don't give a fuck if Bezos has 40 Billion or 100 Billion. It does not change my day or how I live my life. I'm not sure why it has to bother any of you. Fuck him. I fear my government much more than I do Jeff Bezos.
How about the big wet sloppy kiss Biden gave. Putin on day one, canceling Keystone and restricting fracking, driving up the price of oil so that Putin can better fund his military. Trump never did anything for Putin, certainly not on that massive a scale.
We haven’t done this much for Putin’s energy market share since Hillary handed in the lion’s share of North American uranium, and the scores of millions of dollars to her foundation were just a coincidence.
Anybody seen any evidence that the Clinton Foundation has ever helped anybody who didn’t help the Clinton’s political machine first?
Hunter’s laptop had a “Biden Foundation” sticker on it, and he used it to run a multi-billion dollar empire of graft.
Washington State Democrats have been trying to create a wealth tax on all worldwide wealth greater than $1B of about 1% or 2% . Just four people would "contribute" 97% of the yearly taxes - Jeff Bezos, Bill and Melinda Gates, and Jeff Bezos's ex-wife. We all know they'd move out of Washington, so the tax would have to be extended downwards to collect any revenue. Anyone with intelligence above that of a moron can see that happening. Anyone except President-Emeritus Joe Biden, who can't even qualify as a moron.
Warren stayed in one extra primary longer than everybody else who cleared the field for Biden, so that she could split the support of Biden’s only real opposition, Bernie. She’s a real sweetheart.
even the pretense of public service is gone.
At least the British aristocracy were expected to fight when there was a war :)
Unconstitutional but that never stopped the Left.
It's gotten to the point though that the Republicans should not fight it and watch Lizzie crusade against Bezos.
A better way to "tax the rich":
1) Borrowing against your shares. If you borrow against your equity, you pay taxes as if you sold that equity. This avoids people like Zuck borrowing $750M tax free against his FB shares (at a 1% interest by the curiously enough, the bank that book ran the FB IPO, but of course the SEC would never look into something as blatant as that).
2) Share transfer to non-profits controlled by the rich person should be deemed a sale of your interest and taxable. Yeah, I like charities too but I the "Clinton Foundation" and the Zucks etc are not charities. They're influence peddlers. so fuck'em, tax em.
3) Even though it would have hurt me, yes, carried interest is really part of your income if you're a hedge fund/private equity person. Tax it as income, not capital gains.
4) No direct share compensation in retirement accounts (the Romney tax, or how he got $200M tax free in his IRA)
In short: Less Guns! More Butter!
Quickly followed by:
"Hey! They took all our butter!"
"How about the big wet sloppy kiss Biden gave. Putin on day one, canceling Keystone and restricting fracking, driving up the price of oil so that Putin can better fund his military."
Putin, that day, is reported to have exclaimed, "Спасибо, президент Байден!"
Mike Wallens said...
Why would any one on the right be opposed to Warren's wealth tax? Those zillionaires aren't on their side. Of course , the zillionaires would find a way out of paying.
The last sentence is exactly what would happen. The revenue raised from the wealthy would never be enough. The wealth exemption floor would be lowered and lowered until the wealth tax hit everyone. That's why those of modest means oppose such a scheme. Plus the fact it's from Pocahontas, mighty Cherokee maiden who speeketh with forketh tongue.
chuck rightly observes: At least the British aristocracy were expected to fight when there was a war :)
Yes, and were expected to furnish their own expenses!
"Some of the other hunters notice this, and want to be as successful as him. (jealousy) They watch him, and learn to tie rocks to their clubs also."
Except now we are talking about just ganging up on Grog and taking his superior club and using it to take all the clubs. Of course, Grog will now keep his ideas to himself.
"I wouldn't have known Rousseau was dead in 1793.
Me neither. I wasn't even born yet"
LOL!!
"The wealth exemption floor would be lowered and lowered until the wealth tax hit everyone."
It would definitely be lowered until it started scooping up the assets of people either too dumb or too poor to evade it with a legion of accountants and tax lawyers.
Taxes, schmaxes! I thought there were some Tucker fans here; he spoke the other night about just how absurd the situation is-- there's not even a pretense any more that the gummint 'needs' our taxes, since modern monetary theory (MMT, it's a thing) and practice are just to keep printing more come what may.
That kicks tax policy and tax debate into manipulation of rewards and punishments for various groups, promoting or discouraging certain kinds of wealth and work, etc, from which only the RICH and their obfuscation specialists benefit.
Parisian radicalism sometimes has an infectious appeal, but the real French are good at applying the brakes when necessary.
Narr
Those that eat the rich may run out and start looking for other sources of protein
I still don't believe Biden had the right to shutdown the pipeline project that had been approved and billions spent on its preparation. Twenty-one states are suing him over this but I think the states involved should just bypass the feds and go ahead with the project.
"Not everyone. I've never had any desire to be rich."
If you happen to inherit a large sum, please, let's talk. I can help you remain true to yourself.
Tim in Vermont on why Biden is messing about in Syria. It sure isn't for their oil. While Syria products 385,000 barrels a day of crude, the US was producing 19.47 million barrels of crude a day--or about 19% of total world supply. That figure is accurate as of January 1, 2021. Who knows what will happen when all of Biden's executive orders kick in--the US number will be less.
That said Syrian daily oil production was less than 2% of US daily oil production. Not really anything to get het up about one way or the other if it somehow got shut in and taken off the market.
Ken B said...
It’s unconstitutional but there is a work around. Pass a law that everyone needs a franu, which is made only by Franu Inc, the patent holder. They charge some people twenty bucks other people twenty million, and still others 20 billion. They are a private company, they can do what they like. Franu Inc then donates to the treasury, minus a handling fee of course, and a donation to Sen Warren’s PAC, natch.
Easy peasy, strongarm squeezy.
************
Where to start?:
* aside from Obamacare, which was legalized as a "tax", the government can't force you to buy anything. Calling a forced payment for a private product a "tax" would be a real stretch, even for the spineless Supremes. Ditto for giving a special preference to a private company.
* having that private company charge people different prices for its product would likely run afoul of the Robinson-Patman act, which forbids price discrimination . So that private company cannot "do as it likes".
* calling the net revenues received by that company due to the government requiring people to buy its products a "donation" doesn't pass the SNORT test.
* it would take blowing up of the filibuster rule and the Constitution itself to carry out such a politically crackpot idea. If congress wanted to do that, it theoretically could.
But "easy peazy", my ass.
Blogger Skeptical Voter said...
Tim in Vermont on why Biden is messing about in Syria. It sure isn't for their oil.
Come on. That is a permanent employment plan for Obama generals. How are they gonna get promoted the next rung on the ladder to those defense industry jobs ? There are no longer any generals that have fought anybody. Look at the two black generals (one is more tan than black) that Biden/Pelosi have running things. Neither has ever held a combat command. REMFs both of them.
I used to think Mattis was for real then he ends up on Theranos' Board trying to sell the military on imaginary lab tests.
Michael K has the military brass pegged, all right. It's all about money and power and nothing whatever to do for defense readiness. We all know that Ike warned about this back in the 1950's. He'd be pretty shocked to see the extent of the military-industrial-political complex today.
If you happen to inherit a large sum, please, let's talk. I can help you remain true to yourself.
Don't worry, bagoh. My kids and grandkids have relieved me of any danger of unwanted wealth. ;-)
The Syrian minister said in statements to the state-owned Al-Ikhbariya TV channel (and subsequently translated in Iranian state media), that the areas under the control of the US and their allied forces contain more than 90% of the oil reserves of Syria.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/syrian-oil-minister-estimates-us-has-pirated-92-billion-crude
Remember 2006 when he had an election and rejected regime change wars? Ha ha ha ha! All you need is a Democrat president, and suddently it’s all A-OK!
The super rich--individuals and corporate entities--are the main constituents of both parties. Any criticism of politics that assumes or pretends another reality is a lie (or a delusion).
The delusion is yours, Cook. While there is no question that your first sentence is correct, your second sentence runs against the facts. A quick scan through the Forbes list will reveal a significantly disproportionate percentage of hardcore lefties and supporters of hardcore lefties.
The supporters of lefties may be thinking that the bear will not eat them because they are paying the danegeld or oysleyzgelt. They are wrong.
- Krumhorn
and eventually pay lip service to a hint of fiscal discipline.
Good one! Pull my other leg too.
The rich are too skinny to eat. Eating deplorables is the best way to Ketosis
For identity politics, there is no surer bet than attacking the “super rich.” Since philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau spoke of “eating the rich” before the Reign of Terror, politicians have had an insatiable appetite for class warfare politics.
Kruse's critique is dumb, but Turley is making a clichéd point about the American and French Revolutions having different outcomes because of the varying influences of the Scottish vs French Enlightenment, Locke vs. Rosseau, etc.
I think it is very unlikely that such philosophical distinctions explain the differing outcomes. The colonies had a history of self-rule with minimal royal or parliamentary interference in their affairs and were seeking to sever their political bonds with Great Britain. The French overthrew the Ancien Régime and were surrounded by hostile great powers.
Gahrie said...
It's not so much hate as greed and jealousy for most people.
Nope, it's an awareness of who our enemies are.
Zuckerberg funding Democrat vote collecting operations in multiple States, often violating election laws to do so. He and Bexos and Dorsey are using their market power to censor non-Left thought
Screw them
Destroy them
They are the enemy of all decent human beings, because even a Democrat who's a decent human being is opposed to censoring opposing ideas.
Tax the hell out of them
Of course nobody looks at the back pages anymore..
"Disappointing that Turley deleted the tweet and then put back up a corrected one. Bad twitter practice."
Don't do things that make you weak.
I would support taking everything from the people that own google, twitter, and facebook and giving it to Elon Musk.
And amazon while we are at it.
Microsoft.
Salesforce.
You are what you eat, minus what you shit.
Narr - 3:21
Well yes. The democrats use the tax code as punishment and control. That's why "taxing the rich!" = leaving the ultra rich alone.
That's why I call it democratic tax rape.
yes france had a more feudal system, the system was more brittle, and when you have a less fruitful harvest, along with the debts incurred from the American war, it cracked, the Russians had a similar system, where Catherine averred in following further reforms because of what happened in France, by the time that Alexander 2nd's reforms came along, they set up the narodniki peoples will, that consummed him, and plunged Russia back into Czarist Winter, the ruinous war with Japan, cracked the glass and World War One led to total collapse,
tcrosse said...
You are what you eat, minus what you shit.
For about a million years after moving out of the trees and onto the plains eating large game instead of fruits/nuts/leaves our brains grew massively compared to our gut size which shrank.
This continued until we moved to domesticated agriculture and agrarian societies and the trend reversed.
Lately our brain to gut ratios are approaching that of our common ancestors with chimps.
Syria policy, is seriously schizophrenic, as a minority allawite in a majority sunni population, they defer to iran, yet enabled the ratlines against the coalition forces in iraq,
(tony badran filled that whole in) they were also tacitly supporting us against other sunni elements, this was when the democrats were all keen on syria, after that interlude many of those salafi were imprisoned, and then they were released during the Spring thaw, this was an opportunity of the gulf states to try to swing the regime toward their sectarian branch and about 500 million was committed to that end, this is around the time the salafi principality, as general flynn noted came to pass, the syrians called in their long time associates in russia, who instructed them to be ruthless, like their algerian charges,
"As Republicans become the party of the deplorable rural poor-to-middle...."
They are not becoming that.
I don't what the fraudulent red squaw's point was, (in her professional and personal) she was the authority that underlay obamacare, the stimulus and the rescue package, amazon facebook,
twitter are among the most powerful corporations not only in this country, followed by financial institutions, and then the rest, they shaped the battlefield that allowed this fraudulent progressive beachhead,
Blogger Robert Cook said...
"As Republicans become the party of the deplorable rural poor-to-middle...."
They are not becoming that.
No, we are becoming the enemies of the clerisy class, which shares values with the super rich like Gates and Zuck. The super rich think their success in one narrow field gives them wisdom to rule over all. Steve Jobs learned the hard way that he did not know all things.
"The delusion is yours, Cook. While there is no question that your first sentence is correct, your second sentence runs against the facts. A quick scan through the Forbes list will reveal a significantly disproportionate percentage of hardcore lefties and supporters of hardcore lefties."
Do you think the personal political preferences of rich individuals (or the individuals who make up the rich corporations) stop them from lobbying powerful politicians and providing other inducements to get beneficial and favored legislation passed? Do you think any politicians of either party refuse to be induced by the generous "favors" of rich men they know may hate them on a personal or political level? It's about getting what you want and dealing with whomever is in power at any given time to get it. And those in power always want to play.
J. Farmer said...
I think it is very unlikely that such philosophical distinctions explain the differing outcomes. The colonies had a history of self-rule with minimal royal or parliamentary interference in their affairs and were seeking to sever their political bonds with Great Britain. The French overthrew the Ancien Régime and were surrounded by hostile great powers.
There just weren't very many loyalists around to execute.
I think they also tended to just let people go back home rather than execute them after the fighting was over. The only people that I really remembered getting executed were traitors.
Common Law foundations probably had something to do with it too.
Biggest difference was the Atlantic Ocean though pretty clearly.
And some of the French Nobility really did kinda have it coming. And in the end in France it just turned into a typical power struggle where the other side is killed for one justification or another. They just gave Marx ideas.
Robert Cook said...
Do you think the personal political preferences of rich individuals (or the individuals who make up the rich corporations) stop them from lobbying powerful politicians and providing other inducements to get beneficial and favored legislation passed? Do you think any politicians of either party refuse to be induced by the generous "favors" of rich men they know may hate them on a personal or political level? It's about getting what you want and dealing with whomever is in power at any given time to get it. And those in power always want to play.
This is universal truth.
Positions of power are magnetic to corrupt individuals.
But democrat voters are stupid and tribal.
Republican voters are staging a revolt against the corruption.
You can pretend not to see it. That is on you.
"A quick scan through the Forbes list will reveal a significantly disproportionate percentage of hardcore lefties and supporters of hardcore lefties."
I forgot to ask: What "hardcore lefties?" (Aside from AOC and a handful or less of other, younger legislators, I mean.) And who knows how "leftish" they actually are or will turn out to be over time, assuming they retain their seats? How much of the goals these few want to accomplish will they ultimately achieve?
People who claim there are "hardcore lefties" in Congress simply reveal how radically right-wing they are.
Biggest difference was the Atlantic Ocean though pretty clearly.
I disagree. The biggest difference is that the French revolution was against the elites and the established order. In the American revolution, the revolution was by the elites and established order. The French revolution was about destroying the status quo, the American revolution about (in the Founders' eyes) preserving it.
People who claim there are "hardcore lefties" in Congress simply reveal how radically right-wing they are.
Comrade Marvin's biggest complaint about Pol Pot is that he was way too moderate.
the french revolution rapidly consumed itself, leading to the thermidor phase, when it tried to export it's more palatable elements, to the european continent, and as far away as egypt, had they succeeded, they might have gone on to the Arabian peninsula,
the Russian revolution insisted on consolidating it's power first (that was the stalin vs trotsky distinction) before moving aggressively against what they considered reactionary powers, they saw the german social democrats as their main obstacle, albert krug aka jan valtin, showed that struggle on a granular level, among the dock workers,
There just weren't very many loyalists around to execute.
That isn't true. In many ways the American Revolution was a civil war. At the outbreak of hostilities, about a third of the colonists wanted independence, a third were loyal to the king, and a third didn't give a fuck and wanted to be left alone. There were many atrocities involved, on all sides.
Many are between a rock and a hard place. The super rich can hide their assets legally and have great lawyers.
The merely 'well-off' are going to get fucked.
Napoleon waged a secular movement against the old dynasts of the continent, the Hapsburgs, the Hanoverians, the Bourbons whose remnant was in Spain,
When we re-open the schools, Elizabeth will return to her job as a playground supervisor.
the loyalists largely emigrated to Canada, as they deferred to the Crown,
among the french revolution, where could they go, the blood flowed like the seine through the country, the sectarian institutions were also targeted as due course, this was a similar path as happened in liberal regimes in south and central america, with the other faction backing the Church and the landed elites,
@Krumhorn:
While there is no question that your first sentence is correct, your second sentence runs against the facts. A quick scan through the Forbes list will reveal a significantly disproportionate percentage of hardcore lefties and supporters of hardcore lefties.
See David Brooks' Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There or Charles Murray's Coming Apart. As the UPenn law professor Amy Wax remarked, the upper class "talk the 60s but live the 50s." In Benjamin Barber's 1992 essay Jihad vs. McWorld, he noted that they exhibited "behaviors of the kind bred by cosmopolitan city life everywhere" and were "a new breed of men and women for whom religion, culture, and nationality can seem only marginal elements in a working identity."
I think it was in the self interest of the super wealthy in both parties to be. rid of Donald Trump. That is for certain Cookie.
Since they utterly control the DNC, they had nothing to fear from Bernie.
Dems are playing prog games, but you saw from last summer and fall, the fallout is anything but fake, for they have made alliances with forces within and without, that want their abolition, within you have susan rosenberg and ayers battalions, two wings of the same bird, without you have foreign powers like china and iran, with russia being a distant 3rd in that trifecta, the first nurses the anger of the colonial period, the second a revanchist shia, islamist power, which wants to take over it's sunni islamist nation, the last grievances over it's recent time of troubles,
A yuge difference between the AmRev and the FrenchRev was that the first came after one of the greatest victories in 18th C milhist--the UK and Allies in the Seven Years War--the second after major exertions and expenditures, including massive support of the American colonists, beyond the capacity of the French state.
The new USofA had problems indeed, but it was a critical and growing part of the new Brit-dominated Atlantic system with a vast area to develop; ancient regime France was massively broke and massively corrupt, a cultural center but economically and financially stagnant.
The aristos were largely exempt from taxes, the assumption being that they paid the blood tax as officers, but that was mostly a memory.
The church was wealthy, stupid, and embedded with the aristos.
The new money and new thinkers found themselves blocked out and locked out.
Peasants and urban poor often starved.
But because fewer than 20k (from a pop of >20millions) met bloody ends at the hands of radicals, and more were killed in commonplace revolt, rebellion, and low-level civil war, even American liberals are apt to tut about the period.
But that's nothing to self-identified American conservatives (often Prot!) who grow misty-eyed about the Old Regime for reasons that always elude me.
Great historical revolutions, with results that reach across the globe and are still having positive effects centuries later, are nothing to lament.
Narr
Vive la Republique!
that's in very broad strokes admittedly, the first's branches influence is in media and education, which overlaps into government, with considerable purchase in the administrative state,
Yes indeed, the French revolution's influence was bottled up, and there was a Bourbon restoration, which was curtailed by outbursts in 1848 and another branch of bonapartism, that lasted into the 1870s if not further, and the first manifestations of socialism and anarchism,
that deluge happened with the combine of the world wide downturn and the canal scandal, which in turn fostered revanchism of the Boulangerist sects, that ended in the Dreyfus kerfluffle,
England was not unaffected by these currents they just took longer to manifest, the Reform Acts came to naught within an interval of time, they happened at the time that Marx was at the British Museum, that was also the high point of Imperialism, there was nowhere to go but down,
The American Revolution was largely about economics and trade. Though many a flowery philosophical explanation was written to justify it, it was really about economic independence.
Mad-as-hell suggests: When we re-open the schools, Elizabeth will return to her job as a playground supervisor.
Warren reminds me of a couple of teachers I had. Everyone hated them.
initially, the English crown and it's apparat, typified by lord north and sackville west, sought to recover a share of the expenses of the french and indian wat, hence the stamp act, but eventually mere autonomy was not enough, so the question of political liberty entered into the mix,
some of the earlier background here,
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/preface.htm
marx was a better chronicler, then theorist, as with the ones who say they follow in his name,
"Dreyfus kerfluffle"
I like this better than the normal "Dreyfus Affair".
yes it was the hidebound french military bureaucracy that scapegoated dreyfus, out of paranoia about germany the lasting effect after his exoneration was the rise of drumont and those elements that would end in vichy,
No, the FrenchRev was not bottled up--it and the ideas associated with it disturbed Europe from that time forward. The USA is the great example of the successful anti-colonial war of national liberation, with historical antecedents as well as copycat revolutionary wars to follow.
The FrenchRev and Empire was not like anything seen in Europe or anywhere else until then.
Keegan's comparison the other way--think of Alexander of Macedon as a "sort of Highland Napoleon"--is excellent. The French had big-footed around since 1494 and before, always powerful, sometimes overwhelming, but moderate in aims and methods for the most part.
After three hundred years, they were still the most populous and potentially the richest country in Europe, and had become the unquestioned center of culture and fashion largely by way of their military power and prestige. The Revolution unleashed energies and expectations that were far more than the old regimes could handle, and they couldn't restrict their adaptations to the new circumstances to their armies alone.
A. Roberts writes that Napoleon's rise and fall helped spread the more practical new ideas quickly to places that might have been oblivious otherwise, long enough for them to take root despite their tainted origins.
To arguments that he left France broke and a wasteland, there were French armies marching through Spain again less than ten years after Waterloo, and by 1830 they were ready to conquer vast areas overseas, at great cost.
Not a broke and exhausted country like the one that gave up at Dien Bien Phu or pulled out of Algeria in almost the same span (1815-30, 1945-62).
Narr
Vive la revolution!
I'm starting to notice a subtle pattern with the American left. (Or, as I feel sure Robert Cook would call them, center.)
- Nobody should be too rich. (Except those guys. They're OK; they're with us.)
- People need to stop emitting so damn much CO2. (But you have to let us keep flying, or we won't be able to spread the good word.)
- Dark money is bad. (But as long as it's not banned, it's OK when we use it to help the underdog for once.)
- Lobbyists are bad. (But ours are at least trying to push things in the right direction.)
- Corporations are bad. (Don't worry: If you are sufficiently on our side, we can absolve you.)
- Privileged white people are the problem. (Except us. We're on your side. You need us to fight for you.)
Rush Limbaugh back in the day told the wonderful story of Ron Silver (who changed his tune later) feeling offended at the fighter jets flying over Bill Clinton's first inauguration: This is our day. What are they doing here?!
It's all right, Ron, a friend reassured him. They're our jets now.
Robert Cook said...
Do you think the personal political preferences of rich individuals (or the individuals who make up the rich corporations) stop them from lobbying powerful politicians and providing other inducements to get beneficial and favored legislation passed
Wow, cookie, that was amazingly stupid, even for you.
The super-rich spent all 2020 pushing Biden and the Dems. That big meanie Trump was siding with workers against business, see China and immigration, and the Dems promised to screw over the workers and help the super rich
Which they're now doing. See the southern border, and the pro filled "Covid" laws
J. Farmer said...
I think it is very unlikely that such philosophical distinctions explain the differing outcomes. The colonies had a history of self-rule with minimal royal or parliamentary interference in their affairs and were seeking to sever their political bonds with Great Britain. The French overthrew the Ancien Régime and were surrounded by hostile great powers.
Then there's this lie from Narr:
But because fewer than 20k (from a pop of >20millions) met bloody ends at the hands of radicals, and more were killed in commonplace revolt, rebellion, and low-level civil war, even American liberals are apt to tut about the period
Oh, bullshit. They were waging war on their fellow Frenchmen before they waged it on the rest of Europe.
2k in Lyon, the slaughter of the Girondins, 12,k - 15k slaughtered in Nantes, all the deaths from the Terror in Paris, and then there's the Vendée.
When it was over, General Francois Joseph Westermann wrote a letter back to the government saying: “There is no more Vendée… According to the orders that you gave me, I crushed the children under the feet of the horses, massacred the women who, at least for these, will not give birth to any more brigands. I do not have a prisoner to reproach me. I have exterminated all.”
They weren't forced to do this by their external or internal enemies, they did it because they were bloody minded murderous scum.
When we won the American Revolution, those who hated the result were allowed to leave. The French revolutionaries hunted down and murdered many of those who wished to flee
@Narr:
The Revolution unleashed energies and expectations that were far more than the old regimes could handle, and they couldn't restrict their adaptations to the new circumstances to their armies alone.
Or you could say that that "energies and expectations that were far more than the old regimes could handle" unleashed Revolution.
Regarding the constitutional debate in the US, I often say I think the Antifederalists were right, but the Federalists were inevitable. The strategic environment plays a big role in shaping the development of states. As Charles Tilley noted, "the state makes war, and war makes the state." The development of industrialized nation-states in Europe, the US, and Japan all resulted in powerful centralized states, territorial expansion and colonial empires in Africa and Asia, and modernization of the economy.
@Althouse, just stopped by before calling it a night. However I do want to say that it is utterly reprehensible to associate the title “Brains” with the image of Elizabeth Warren.
Farmer said...
The development of industrialized nation-states in Europe, the US, and Japan all resulted in powerful centralized states, territorial expansion and colonial empires in Africa and Asia, and modernization of the economy.
Really? Where were the US colonies any place outside the North American continent?
Oh, and a further note about the French Revolution vs the US one:
Supposedly the US was 1/3 pro-Revolution, 1/3 moderate / indifferent, and 1/3 opposed.
1/3 of the US didn't decamp to Canada at the end of the Revolution. Certainly no great part of the US left across the Atlantic after the US won.
There wasn't mass slaughter because the US revolutionaries were better people, pushing a better system, than the French.
no more, no less
People who claim there are "hardcore lefties" in Congress simply reveal how radically right-wing they are.
BWHAHAHAHA
Okay, want me to name them all? Every fecking one that voted to impeach DJT. You can alphabetize it.
THEOLDMAN
You sound like the MSM, it's always using the tag "far right" but NEVER "far left".
The meanings of right and left change over time. The distinction came out of the French Revolution but when working class and socialist movements arose in the 19th century, socialism became the left or far left, taking the term over from the Jacobins, who weren't socialist. The meaning changed again with Lenin and the idea of the dictatorship of the vanguard of the proletariat and the reality of a Communist regime. Left and right don't have quite the same meaning in Europe and in the US, and even in our country the terms have changed meaning since Jefferson's day.
Fifty years ago, the far left were the Leninists and Maoists. There aren't that many of them around any more. Even socialism isn't the lodestone it once was for the left. Now race, gender, sexual identity and the environment are in the forefront. There are even "Ecological Leninists" who see some variant of "War Communism" as the answer for the climate change. The old political spectrum doesn't apply very well today.
Think back to Gladstone's England. There were a few socialists, but a radical wasn't a socialist or communist or anarchist. It was most often somebody who wanted votes for the working class or somebody who just didn't like the aristocracy and the monarchy or the established church. There were no Maoists or Leninists, but plenty of radicals. The situation isn't entirely different today.
I don't have a problem calling avowed socialists in Congress "far left" (well, maybe I would have a little problem saying it to old uncle Bernie's face, but that's what he is). Socialism is quite a radical idea for Americans. I could understand somebody seeing no "far leftists" in Congress, but if they see plenty of "far rightists" or "radical rightists" in Congress they should probably get their eyesight checked. Whether we're talking abortion or gun rights or immigration or the size of government, one would be hard pressed to find a real radical rightist in the House or the Senate.
Greg, you're a caution. You call me a liar and then amplify my point!
The best estimate of victims of the Terror is about 20k, and many of those were Revolutionaries themselves (think of it as Red on Red violence and be glad); many others died as I said of the things that always accompanied great upheavals. Red on Red, French on French, what's your point? Where's the lie?
How many tears must be shed to satisfy your tender feels?
And you take a Revolutionary's bloodthirsty boast--even if literally true--as some kind of departure or innovation in Europe? Massacre, unusual?
Bloody-minded murderous scum, each and every Revolutionary?
And all for naught, I must conclude?
Narr
You take that class treason pretty far, don't you?
1/3 of the French didn't leave France either, Greg. Not 1/3 of 1/3/ of 1/3 of 1/3.
That statistical triage about the AmRev was old and questionable when they were peddling it in the 1970s, but for the sake of argument:
The percentage of Loyalists who left or were forced out after 1783 was FAR greater than the % of French population that had any notion of leaving France, or any need to. And for that matter, do you have any idea who the French emigres were, in comparison to the exiles from the US? Any, slight idea of their places in society and what they had to offer a new land, and why that might matter?
I confess that your attempt at critique leaves me puzzled, and invite you to clarify why you think your argument is worth making in the first place.
Narr
A candid public will note who uses facts and who uses insults
More naive Marxism from mockturtle.
Things naive marxists say are really about economics:
French Revolution
Russian Revolution
Haiti Revolt
Protestant Reformation
Spread of Islam
Spread of Christianity
Roman Empire
Copernican Revolution
Mozart's Requiem
Dickens's Novels
Women's suffrage
Vegetarianism
Chess
Etc
Things that naive Marxists say are about ideas not money: Marxism. That's it. Everything else is about economics.
Which is mockturtle's explanation for the ratification debate too.
Where were the US colonies any place outside the North American continent?
Guam, Midway and the Philippines.
Depending on definitions, Panama.
Well we gave up the phillipines, guam is a willing territory, midway is halfway.
I often say I think the Antifederalists were right, but the Federalists were inevitable.
I often say that the biggest mistake the Founders made was giving in to the Anti-Federalists and creating the Bill of Rights. It fundamentally altered the nature of the Constitution for the worst.
From cannibalism to clinical cannibalism, following disarming, dismembering, decapitating, and disemboweling. Diversity. Progress. One step forward, two steps backward.
Well we gave up the phillipines, guam is a willing territory, midway is halfway.
Our overseas imperialism phase was short lived, and relatively late in history, but it did exist. (We needed coaling stations for our brand new steam-driven navy) You have to remember, most of the age of imperialism, the United States was still engaged in Manifest Destiny.
By the way, I still think Carter's biggest mistake (and he made a lot of them) was giving back the Panama Canal Zone.
By the way, I still think Carter's biggest mistake (and he made a lot of them) was giving back the Panama Canal Zone.
Totally!
@Greg The Class Traitor:
Really? Where were the US colonies any place outside the North American continent?
The Philippines. Kipling's White Man's Burden was an exhortation to Americans to colonize and annex the Philippines. The American Anti-Imperialist League was founded in response.
Prior to that, the US conquered territory from Mexico, forcibly opened Japan to foreign trading, intervened in Latin America to open or stabilize markets for US commercial interests, and conquered and annexed Hawaii.
@Gahrie:
I often say that the biggest mistake the Founders made was giving in to the Anti-Federalists and creating the Bill of Rights. It fundamentally altered the nature of the Constitution for the worst.
In what way do you believe it has done that?
The US Constitution, referred to as the Supreme Law of the Land, are words written on paper. The ink and the paper confers no power. It was the men who agreed to be bound by it, who gave it power.
In our World, men no longer agree that those words bind.
We allowed a deviant US Dept of Education to take over K-12 for the past 30 years. It teaches the 'Founders' were old, white, male slave owners.
We allowed penumbras, and emanations to be found in an old musty document. The Constitution became something to 'get around' and thwart. Plenty of Supreme Court Justices refused to do their job of 'upholding the Constitution' and preferred to 'interpret it'.
We can rail against the dying of the Light, and talk about 'Founders' rolling over in their graves, as if that will convince the progeny.
It amounts to whispers in the wind.
While it lasted...it was glorious.
It's really too bad, Ken, that Canada never understood basic economics. The country might have amounted to something.
In what way do you believe it has done that?
When the Constitution was written, it was an a numeration of the powers given by the people to the government. The idea was, if there was a question as to whether the government could do something, you looked at the Constitution. If it was in there, you could do it. If it wasn't, you couldn't. So we didn't need a Second Amendment, because we never gave the government the power to regulate or ban weapons. In order to give them that power, we would have to pass an amendment.
Over time, the Bill of Rights has changed that. Now when the question as to whether the government could do something comes up, people look at the Constitution, and if there is nothing there to prevent it, they think the government can do it. My first item of evidence is the fact that both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are moribund.
We allowed penumbras, and emanations to be found in an old musty document. The Constitution became something to 'get around' and thwart. Plenty of Supreme Court Justices refused to do their job of 'upholding the Constitution' and preferred to 'interpret it'.
The elementary, foundational, point of logic on this issue that has always bothered me is this:
If the meaning of the words contained in the Constitution can change without an amendment passed by the people... what is the point of writing it down in the first place? Why did they spend literally hours debating grammar and punctuation?
But the thing that bothers me the most about judicial review is that it was imposed upon the US people by a conspiracy.
In case I haven't made myself clear, the Founders would have found the idea that the meaning of the words they had written could change by judicial fiat uncivilized and abhorrent.
If the men who had written and passed the Fourteenth Amendment had known that it would be one day used to justify birthright citizenship, abortion and same sex marriage, they would have included a clause in it that said: This amendment in no way is meant to justify or create a right to birthright citizenship, abortion or same sex marriage.
Gahrie said...
Me: Where were the US colonies any place outside the North American continent?
Guam, Midway and the Philippines.
You destroy the language by abusing it.
To "colonize" is to send large scale population numbers to take over the place. See: 13 English colonies in NA.
How many people did we send to Guam, Midway and the Philippines? What were the existing populations?
J. Farmer said...
Prior to that, the US conquered territory from Mexico, intervened in Latin America to open or stabilize markets for US commercial interests, and conquered and annexed Hawaii
None of which are in Africa or Asia, pre your previous claim. Mexico: North American continent, like I specified. Of the rest, Hawaii might count as a "colonization", and it's now part of our country. The rest by no means can qualify as "colonizing".
sort of cargo cult mentality >>> acknowledging the superiority of higher IQ for achieving success in life and pursuit of happiness??!!
materialist philosoph(er)y has to acknowledge mind in a back-handed way
Greg The Class Traitor said...
Gahrie said...
Me: Where were the US colonies any place outside the North American continent?
Guam, Midway and the Philippines.
You destroy the language by abusing it.
To "colonize" is to send large scale population numbers to take over the place.
----=======
In India they teach in history - call British colonialist invaders
Mughal Empire was already fait accompli and Indian history!
Narr said...
The best estimate of victims of the Terror is about 20k, and many of those were Revolutionaries themselves (think of it as Red on Red violence and be glad); many others died as I said of the things that always accompanied great upheavals. Red on Red, French on French, what's your point? Where's the lie?
The US Revolution was a "great upheaval", and it lacked the mass murder of the French one.
Italy and Germany becoming nations were "great upheavals". Again, I don't recall mass slaughter on the order of Nantes, or the Vendée.
How many tears must be shed to satisfy your tender feels?
Here's hoping you get to experience such tears, then, if that slaughter bothers you so little.
And you take a Revolutionary's bloodthirsty boast--even if literally true--as some kind of departure or innovation in Europe? Massacre, unusual?
I take it as strong indication that the French Revolution had not moral, ethical, or political worth. It was more of the same, just done by different people.
it was worthless shit. unlike the American Revolution.
Bloody-minded murderous scum, each and every Revolutionary?
Well no, not all. Some of them got executed by the comrades they'd enabled.
And all for naught, I must conclude?
Well, the Code Napoleon is a shit legal system. Their fake religion got dumped. The metric system is useful for science, but crap for human use.
France spent the next 100 years under monarchy, or crap "Republics" that mainly got their asses kicked by the Germans. They won WWI with British & US help, lost the peace, and have never amounted to anything since then.
So yeah, "all for naught" seems correct.
How many people did we send to Guam, Midway and the Philippines? What were the existing populations?
Because of how we obtained most of our overseas colonies, the colonization population was not American, except in the case of Hawaii, but European, usually Spanish. We were sort of colonialists by proxy, largely because of how late we were in entering the game. We had to obtain our colonies from other colonial powers.
There are two cases of traditional overseas imperialism in American history. The first is Hawaii, where it is clear that an Anglo-American population arrived and eventually seized power from the native population. The second is Panama, where we created a revolution, and then forced the new nation to give us a strip of land. This land was literally and legally American territory. The quibble is whether or not Central America is part of North America or not.
o "colonize" is to send large scale population numbers to take over the place. See: 13 English colonies in NA.
That's not the case at all. Certainly there are colonies of settlement, but that didn't describe British India, where the number of actual British present at any given time was quite small, and it didn't describe any European colonies between the Sahara and South Africa.
For that matter, the number of Spaniards emigrating to their New World colonies was quite small as well.
To "colonize" is to send large scale population numbers to take over the place.
While there were substantial numbers of British sent to India, South Africa and Hong Kong [among others], they were never a majority or even a sizable minority of the population. There were actually quite a few American military and commercial entities in the Philippines prior to WWII.
Narr said...
The percentage of Loyalists who left or were forced out after 1783 was FAR greater than the % of French population that had any notion of leaving France, or any need to. And for that matter, do you have any idea who the French emigres were, in comparison to the exiles from the US? Any, slight idea of their places in society and what they had to offer a new land, and why that might matter?
I confess that your attempt at critique leaves me puzzled, and invite you to clarify why you think your argument is worth making in the first place.
Well, since you've completely missed the point, let me help you:
The "justification" for the slaughter of those who were trying to leave was "they had to kill them, otherwise the refugees would come back and attack."
Bullshit.
The "1/3" discussion" was about people claiming above that the US was so peaceful and non-murdery after the Revolution because the loyalists all fled to Canada.
The US wasn't "non-murdery" after the Revolution because we had the Atlantic protecting us from our enemies, they were right there in Canada. The US was simply a better class of revolution, and society, than the French.
We let those leave who wanted to, mostly let those stay who wanted to, and built a great country out of them all.
Unlike the French.
Because our Revolution was good, and their Revolution was shit
Churchy LaFemme responded in like manner at the same time but beat me to the draw. ;-)
"Though many a flowery philosophical explanation was written to justify it, it was really about economic independence."
It always is. Until you have economic freedoms you only have flowery pretense. When power takes away your right to support yourself, to keep the fruits of your own labor, you have nothing. You are a slave. That freedom, if you lost it, would not be some secondary side issue.
For the fascist, what good is power if you can't use others as slaves and steal their wealth with it? It's the whole enchilada. All the other freedoms are there to protect your economic freedom, because it's the only thing they really want in the end. When they finally get cast out, they don't run off with your speech or your religion, or even your right to self-defense. They steal the money.
Gahrie is correct, of course- the Constitution when written was understood to be the document outlining the powers of the federal government, and those alone. If the power to do something wasn't explicitly in there, the federal government couldn't do it. The first 10 amendments, while noble in purpose, really was the first error because, by listing the things the federal government couldn't do individually, it allowed the natural following argument that everything not listed in the first ten amendments were powers the federal government could exercise. Of course, the people who constructed the amendments in compromise saw this problem, and they thought they fixed it with the 9th and 10th Amendments, but the door was already opened in the compromise.
Now, were the amendments a failure? I strongly suspect we end up in the same place regardless. Central governments centralize power increasingly. They always have, at least they do until the empire starts to crumble, and we are in the crumbling stage.
Really, once the adjudication of the Constitution rested with the judiciary, it was fucked.
Blogger mockturtle said...
Churchy LaFemme responded in like manner at the same time but beat me to the draw. ;-)
Hey, we turtles have to stick together!
An official UK government source says: British rule from the time after the mutiny is often called the Raj. During this period a tiny number of British officials and troops (about 20,000 in all) ruled over 300 million Indians.
Warren reminds me of a couple of teachers I had. Everyone hated them.
The boys LOVED to torment those playground supervisors. They were always surrounded by the girls that couldn't cope on the playground.
When they weren't looking, the soccer, football, baseball was always aimed at them.
......and that's the ONLY way I can understand feminism.
Gahrie - "If the meaning of the words contained in the Constitution can change without an amendment passed by the people... what is the point of writing it down in the first place?'
The Constitution was written for a People who no longer exist. It was 245 years ago. We are not them.
What is the meaning of the word 'marriage'? Was the definition changed by an Amendment passed by the people? No. In our time, every State in the Union, except Maryland, refused to change the meaning of the word.
It was changed though. Who really believes that a man can have a husband? No one.
J Farmer. Can I get an Amen.
@Hercules, not that one though:
The US Constitution, referred to as the Supreme Law of the Land, are words written on paper. The ink and the paper confers no power. It was the men who agreed to be bound by it, who gave it power.
In our World, men no longer agree that those words bind.
The problem is "those words" are not entirely well-understood. And not just in "our World." In their world, too. The first political factions in our new republic, between Democratic-Republicans and Federalists were over constitutional questions.
Also, the "Founding Fathers" were not an ideologically coherent group. The US Constitution itself is not the result of a singular, agreed upon vision but cobbled together through compromises between various factions and sectional interests. Thomas Jefferson had been an outspoken critic of executive power but exercised a great deal of it as president. Alexander Hamilton noted that Jefferson tended to favor "a large construction of the Executive authority" whenever it came to decisions Jefferson supported. Even if we did have some clear notion of the "Founding Fathers" intent(s), we've never had the Constitution of the "Founding Fathers." It was amended after the US Civil War, and the 14th amendment completely changed the constitutional order.
You know....Elizabeth Warren has far-away-eyes.
I'm thinking she can clearly see Joe Biden.......on TV.....with FDR......in 1936.
@Greg The Class Traitor:
None of which are in Africa or Asia, pre your previous claim. Of the rest, Hawaii might count as a "colonization", and it's now part of our country. The rest by no means can qualify as "colonizing".
The Philippines is in Asia. Hundreds of thousands of Americans were living there, and the country was under US control and jurisdiction. It absolutely was a colony. We spent the first decade of the 20th century killing tends of thousands of Filipinos in an effort to subjugate it. Also, I said "territorial expansion and colonial empires in Africa and Asia." We obtained 500,000 square miles of territory by attacking Mexico and taking it from them.
J Farmer- "The problem is "those words" are not entirely well-understood."
If we cannot agree on what a word means...we cannot communicate with each other.
J Farmer...we are souls in this world for a short time. We all bear a Cross. You have yours, I have mine.
Can I get an Amen?
@Hercules, not that one though:
It was changed though. Who really believes that a man can have a husband? No one.
J Farmer. Can I get an Amen.
Funnily enough, I've never made the case that anyone here has to believe that. You people bring it up way more than I ever do.
The word "marriage" isn't in the Constitution. Did you read Trump-appointed, Federalist Society member originalist Neil Gorsuch in Bostock v. Clayton County?
Oh, we can agree on what words mean, but we cannot agree on what they mean when political power is at stake, or money, and certainly not when the adjudicators are biased. Imagine playing a game of poker where the dealer and the floor agree that your flush doesn't beat some other guy's straight. You don't really ever see that, right, but you see the equivalent in courts all the time.
@Hercules, not that one though:
If we cannot agree on what a word means...we cannot communicate with each other.
What's unreasonable? Is a shoulder-fired missile "arms"? Is libel protected speech? It says "speech" and "press", so is pantomime covered as speech? Why couldn't Hamilton and Madison agree if a national bank was "necessary and proper"? Privileges or immunities? Liberty? Due process of law? Equal protection of the laws?
J Farmer. You are an erudite and knowledgeable man.
You strain to stretch words to find the meaning you want them to have.
Perhaps we can settle on a basic agreement.
You are an immortal soul.
Can I get an Amen?
Do you think you have a firm grasp on what numbers are? Think again.
I studied a lot of math in college and grad school, but the practical stuff I needed for advanced chemistry and physics classes- algebra, trigonometry, calculus, statistics, etc. The depth of the ocean of numbers sort of just passed me by, though. I mean, I understood in a general fashion what rational and irrational numbers were, and I even understood what trancendental, constructable, complex, and algebraic numbers were, and how they related to each other- it was part of my algebra education long ago. However, several months ago I learned a new fact for myself- that there are only a few transcedental numbers actually known (proven) even though such numbers are literally infinite in number, infinite in a way greater (infinitely uncountable sets vs infinitely countable ones) than the algebraic numbers I was much more familiar with.
I just never thought about the idea of how you know a number. I didn't know about the idea of computable numbers vs uncomputable ones, or normal numbers. The video I linked above is very basic, but it left me understanding how little we know about something as basic as the possible numbers.
There are people who think we are in charge of the Global Climate. I'm talking about this Earth, that we all are inhabiting.
After Billions of years (?), we are now in charge of the Global Climate? Oh, Children.
I studied a lot of math in college and grad school, but the practical stuff I needed for advanced chemistry and physics classes- algebra, trigonometry, calculus, statistics, etc.
You could get a college degree today.....with much less effort.
Yes, I failed college calculus more than once.
Don't chastise me....there were skirts!!....and beer!
Yes, calculus made a huge difference in my life.
As Feynman said...."It's the language of GOD!"
J Farmer. You are an erudite and knowledgeable man.
I never read ANYTHING he writes.
madAsHell- "I never read ANYTHING he writes."
I will say again, J Farmer is an erudite and knowledgeable man. I rarely agree with him. Still...I want to hear what he has to say. We all get to scroll past those we don't want to hear.
@Hercules, erudite, yes. Knowledgeable? Not so fast.
Ten Years After, I'd Love to Change the World
"Everywhere is freaks and hairies
Dykes and fairies, tell me, where is sanity?
Tax the rich, feed the poor
'Til there are no rich no more
I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you
Population keeps on breeding
Nation bleeding, still more feeding, economy
Life is funny, skies are sunny
Bees make honey, who needs money? No, not poor me
I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you
Oh, yeah
World pollution, there's no solution
Institution, electrocution
Just black and white, rich or poor
Them and us, stop the war
I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you"
here's a fun (by which, i mean Scary) thought...
Presidents normally seem to age about 10 years, during their first term in office
Now; ASSUMING, for the sake of argument, that "President" Biden makes it through his 1st term,
How Old will Slow Jo look in 2024?
He look's to be in his late 80's, now...
So, About a 100?
But Wait!
That's assuming that his Presidency is like others; you know? stress, lack of sleep, etc
It seems like, there's a Real Possibility; that Biden will actually get more youthful
what do y'all think?
@Yancey Ward:
Oh, we can agree on what words mean, but we cannot agree on what they mean when political power is at stake, or money, and certainly not when the adjudicators are biased. Imagine playing a game of poker where the dealer and the floor agree that your flush doesn't beat some other guy's straight. You don't really ever see that, right, but you see the equivalent in courts all the time.
That's why I think the whole Federal Society "judges project" is such a farce. The Supreme Court is a political institution, and its rulings are political decisions regardless of the underlying legal rationale. Most people's reaction will be to like it if they agree with the decisions and dislike it if they don't agree with it. Generally, the people aren't concerned with whether decisions adhere to a specific constitutional jurisprudence.
Even among jurists who ostensibly share a judicial philosophy or outlook, there is not unanimity on decisions. We can agree or disagree with decisions, but there is no way to establish objectively right or wrong answers since ultimately the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.
We're stuck in a weird position where the original Constitution failed and long ago ceased to exist, but we are still stuck with the original mechanics (e.g. the division of the legislature, the Electoral College, several veto points). Those mechanics were for a national government meant to represent the interests of the member states as it provided a common market between them, provided for defense, and represented them in foreign affairs.
After the Civil War, the national government became responsible for protecting the rights of the citizens from being abridged by state governments. This is what led to the incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states.
It says "speech" and "press", so is pantomime covered as speech?
here's better!
Let's say, you're a publisher. Can you be REQUIRED to publish other people's words?
here's an example.
You're busy publishing and a person comes in; Demanding you publish a pro gay message on a cake.
(did i mention, that you write in Icing?)
Are Words, Words? CAN you be required to produce other people's words?
@gilbar:
Are Words, Words? CAN you be required to produce other people's words?
That was the most interesting aspect of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. It's a pity the Court did not address it. Of course, it tacitly accepts the notion of anti-discrimination laws in "public accommodations." I'm not even supportive of that, but they're not going away anytime soon. Permitting First Amendment exemptions are a must.
"There are two cases of traditional overseas imperialism in American history. The first is Hawaii, where it is clear that an Anglo-American population arrived and eventually seized power from the native population. The second is Panama, where we created a revolution, and then forced the new nation to give us a strip of land"
Factually incorrect on both counts. The Kingdom of Hawaii was already ruled by a mixed Anglo-Hawaiian Royal family in 1890s. Further, the King/Queens of Hawaii had encouraged the importation of Foreign capital and Chinese/Japanese labor. And they did ZERO to encourage AVERAGE native Hawaiians to reproduce and keep their majority. As a result, the coup that took over Hawaii and handed it over to the USA was not "Seizing Power" because the power had already been given up.
As for Panama. The Panamanians wanted independence. We did not "create" a revolution, we supported one. We did not "Force them" to give a strip of land, we paid them a large sum of $$ and built a Canal, out of our own pocket, thereby making a worthless piece of Jungle into an incredibly valuable International Canal. Panama still makes huge sums of $$ from it. Panama was never a colony, but we controlled the Canal until we GAVE IT TO THEM.
Its funny that you mention Panama and Hawaii, neither of which are cases of Imperialism. And ignore Puerto Rico, which was straight forward Imperialism. And the Philippines. Nobody in the Power Elite ever gave a good explanation to why we seized PR, or kept it. And the same is true of the Philippines. The Democrat Party starting in 1900 kept running a platform of giving them independence, then FDR & Wilson turned around & refused to give it to them. The Democrat congress finally had to give them Independence in the 1930s by overriding a POTUS Veto.
There is nothing inherently wrong with imperialism. It has served the world well. India is a major player today because of the Raj.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा