Politics '11: Keeping up with the Xornses

[NotMiki]

Judges sometimes just keep on judging because, frankly, they wouldn't know what else to do with their lives.  It's certainly true Souter wanted the first train out of Washington, but Stevens?  Maybe not.  Maybe he wanted to live long enough to see his successor take office.

[Cotigo]

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-its-impossible-get-us

TL;DR: Based off the median family income and cost of living, we're still just prolonging the inevitable.

Bubble burst in 2008, 2010 sees some false, delusional promises of recovery... yeah, we're right on track according to the historical record.

[SnowFire]

That analysis seems to be missing something obvious.  People "got by" in 1910 without necessarily falling into debt and didn't have a fraction of the things we expect even the poor to have nowadays.  The unfortunate answer is just to reduce your cost of living if you can't get by on your income rather than go into debt.  Which..  is kinda what happens in recessions and depressions.  So yeah, more one-car families, more living in crowded and smaller housing, and less eating out.

This is not to say that reducing standard of living will be fun, and certain expenses are structurally nigh-impossible to erase (transport costs in communities not built with mass transit in mind), but it's a different problem than "we are all going to go into debt and go bankrupt and the economy will collapse."

[Cmdr_King]

That problem, of course, being that reduced spending means a shrinking economy, more businesses closed, more jobs lost, and a continuing spiral of increasing unemployment and reduced standards of living until there's just not enough liquidity for the economy to function.

[Cotigo]

Well, more to the point: Right now, everyone seems to be under the total delusion that this standard of living can continue.  It cannot.  Things may not turn to Great Depression era levels of starvation and squalor, but there is no possible way for people to continue living as they are.  Given the modern day culture of undeserved privilege, this may be just as hard psychologically for some people.

To be honest, part of me is glad that I matriculated during this era.  It will teach me some personal responsibility and how to live within my means.  On the other hand, fuck Reagan up the asshole, and every sniveling shithead who treats him like he's the greatest modern president.  He may have restored America's confidence, but I can't help but think that what went on during the Reagan years is the direct cause of the economic bubbles we find ourselves in now.

[Hunter Sopko]

To be honest, part of me is glad that I matriculated during this era.  It will teach me some personal responsibility and how to live within my means.  On the other hand, fuck Reagan up the asshole, and every sniveling shithead who treats him like he's the greatest modern president.  He may have restored America's confidence, but I can't help but think that what went on during the Reagan years is the direct cause of the economic bubbles we find ourselves in now.

I used to think this too, but after Macro it's a little more nebulous. I still think that Reagan gets too much credit, but his economic policies made sense at the time. They just weren't something to be emulated in the long term, or repeated unless the specific problem that brought them about was occurring.

[Grefter]

Reaganomics were a short term solution to a short term problem that were extended on nigh indefinitely and far longer than they needed to.  When people started murder suiciding was about the time they needed to stop, but that is when they went into overdrive and the small man was crushed beneath the boot heel of corporate America.  But hey, at least it seems to have stopped at your middle school, your primary schools haven't been shot up tooooo bad.

[metroid composite]

From all I've heard of Reaganomics, a little deregulation was long overdue.  Apparently the years leading up to Reagan were filled with mounting and mounting regulations.  'Cause, politicians seemed to feel that they should write laws--that's what politicians are there for, right?

Somehow in the mind of the public this turned into "deregulation is the sign of a good politician; the number of regulations N they remove is the measure of how good they are."  Which is...what?  That's like measuring the quality of a politician by the number of laws they manage to write about cheese.  Or measuring a pokemon game by how many times we get into a battle with a Zubat.

[Hunter Sopko]

It was more that the years leading up to it nearly invalidated the Phillips Curve by having inflation AND unemployment go up at the same time for an extended period of time. Tons of factors contributed to this, such as the Vietnam War, the oil embargo, Johnson's Great Society, unions demanding their wages keep up with inflation, etc. The marginal tax rate before Reagonomics was roughly 70%, which is almost obscene. The rate of inflation exceeded 12% a few years in the 70's, and averaged 9.6% for the decade. For contrast, the average in the 50's and 60's was 1.6% and 1983-2007 was 3.1%.

The tax cuts served a purpose. They got businesses and investment started again. The debts set a bad precedent, but weren't at a level the nation couldn't carry should the policy not continue forever. I can't remember the exact number, but the marginal tax rate dropped to something like 35% (in fact, Reagan raised and lowered taxes a few times during his presidency to get things right). Unemployment went down. There was still inflation, but not nearly as bad. Government was in debt, but we at least fixed the potentially crippling problem to our economy. Then we kept going... which... debatable merits. Optomist says that it was the direct cause of our ability to be successful in the 90's. Pessimist would say it saddled us with an unescapable debt.

I'll respect Bush Sr. for a while for the tax hike, actually. It curbed inflation and it, coupled with spending cuts, went a long way to stabilizing the budget. Clinton picked up the ball and ran with it. Bush Jr is the retard who went "hmmm, a minor, natural downturn in the economy? WE MUST RETURN TO REAGANOMICS!!!!11111oneoneone".

[AAA]

On a completely different subject, who do you guys think is gonna be the frontrunner for the republican presidential nom? The thing is I can't think of a single candidate that doesn't have some sort of serious issue/baggage. Palin I don't have to get into, Jindal has made it clear he's not gonna run, Romney's going to have a difficult time dealing with both anti-Mormon bias and having to explain why Massachusetts healthcare system is different from the one just signed into law.

So...who does that leave, exactly? People keep bringing up Newt Gringrich but he's been out of the game so long I don't think he has a shot either, not to mention all his own scandals people can scrape up. Huckabee might try again, but he's also got a cushy job as a Fox news talking head so he might be satisfied.

Then again around this time last election cycle the big money was on Hillary, who had plenty of problems herself, so who knows what's gonna happen.

[metroid composite]

I don't think we'll see any all-star candidates; the incumbent usually wins, Obama's shown just how good he is at campaigning, and you certainly can't attack his lack of experience this time around.

Next point, which candidate represents the party is chosen by voters, as opposed to whichever candidate the party really wants to paint themselves with.  And...given current levels of popularity, I'm expecting the Republican race to be Palin vs not-Palin.  (The "not-Palin" candidate being someone moderate and not into theatrics).

Of course, humans are kinda meta--if we just follow the above through to the conclusion, we get someone similar to John-Kerry--mediocre and moderate (which doesn't seem like the way to beat Obama).  So...bearing that in mind, they might just go for someone mediocre and crazy...like Palin.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather not see Palin '12, but I'm not sure who's more likely than her.

[Dunefar]

I think it's a bit premature to guess '12 candidates yet. How the '10 cycle plays out will affect the planning in a profound way. If the Republicans dreams come true and they pick up some seats to weaken Obama, they may take this election more seriously. If not, I suspect it's going to either be a hungry young politician willing to gamble or a throwaway candidate.

[NotMiki]

I would be very happy not to think about presidential campaigns for another 2 years if at all possible.

[Hunter Sopko]

I would be very happy not to think about presidential campaigns for another 2 years if at all possible.

Somehow saying this, coupled with your avatar amuses the hell out of me.

[Yoshiken]

Mentioned this in chat the other day, think it's worth posting here.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/leading-atheists-richard-dawkins-and-christopher-hitchens-seek-popes-arrest-20100412-s1av.html

While this actually going through is damn unlikely, the part that interests me is this:
"The Vatican is not recognised as a state in international law. People assume that it has existed for time immemorial but it was a construct of [Italian wartime leader Benito] Mussolini and, when the Vatican first applied to become a member of the UN, the US said no," Mr Stephens told The Guardian.

So, in short, the Pope is not given the protection that being a head of state grants -legally-. However, I can somehow see this not actually holding up, or him somehow being given protection before the visit, which is currently scheduled for September. Still, it'll be interesting to see how this unfolds, at the very least.

[Taishyr]

For the Brits specifically, but kinda interesting in general:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7096786.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

JK Rowling writes a guest piece about the British Conservative party. It's not flattering. Point of fact, reading on, it's pretty much chewing their heads off.

[SnowFire]

"The Vatican is not recognised as a state in international law. People assume that it has existed for time immemorial but it was a construct of [Italian wartime leader Benito] Mussolini and, when the Vatican first applied to become a member of the UN, the US said no," Mr Stephens told The Guardian.

This is pretty much nonsense.  The Vatican is clearly the descendant of the Papal States, the parts of Italy the Pope personally ruled since the fall of the Roman Empire.  The Papal States shrunk to nothingness after the House of Savoy succeeded in uniting Italy under their banner and took away all the Pope's territory.  However the Pope was a sore loser and never renounced rulership of Rome / large swathes of Italy until the deal with Mussolini...  which really only recognized the current reality, that the Pope could run his own three blocks of Rome because Italy was willing.

You could say exactly the same thing about Poland, which also ceased to exist for a time, that Poland was merely a construct of the Versailles Treaty and only came into existence in 1919.  To say this would require ignoring the Poland that existed for thousands of years beforehand, but details.

A far better question is if it's a good idea to have the Pope ruling his own territory, but saying it's not a state?  Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[Grefter]

And the world at large has started caring greatly about sovreignty of state again since ... when now?

[Cotigo]

Since it involves religion, of course.

[Pyro]

US Securities and Exchange Commission charges Goldman Sachs with fraud over various gimmicks played by them during the leadup to the financial disaster.

http://bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1247832&position=0

The timing of this is not coincidental, surely.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-17/democrats-say-goldman-sachs-fraud-suit-bolsters-case-for-rules.html

Definitely not.

Regardless of the politics behind it, I'm always for frog-marching the greedy little shits to prison one after the other just because the thought of the hyper-rich and powerful being actually held accountable for being massive assholes gives me some kind of grim satisfaction.

[NotMiki]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/26/92905/supreme-court-to-review-ban-on.html

http://volokh.com/2010/04/26/supreme-court-agrees-to-review-constitutionality-of-ban-on-distributing-violent-video-games-to-minors/

This should be interesting.  Hot on the heels of invalidating a federal ban on depictions of animal cruelty, the supreme court is taking up a case on whether it is constitutional to penalize the sale of violent video games to minors.  Two issues at play here: whether video games are speech under the first amendment in the same way movies and books are (which looks very likely, especially given that the law in question treats them like they are), and to what extent a state can restrict the availability of violent material to minors.

The court's opinion on depictions of animal cruelty robustly supported strict limits on government criminalizing of speech, but I think the court will probably find the CA law valid for two reasons.  First: the court is more deferential to laws that are designed to protect minors from harmful speech (though as far as I know that idea usually plays out in obscene or at least sexual material) and second, the court is old and parochial, and may have been more shocked that a hunting magazine would be contraband than that GTA4 would be.

[superaielman]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703465204575208382473306238.html

A pretty good look at the Arizona immgration bill that just passed.

[Taishyr]

Not in agreement with a lot of it, though I do agree with their final comment - you kinda do fucking need to open up the floodgates some. Current pace of things is pretty fucking stupid in the first place.

This is something that's needed to happen for a while - and it's something that, IIRC, Bush supported (one of his few good points) but his own party forced him to back down on (at a glance, yup, mostly the Republicans killed the bill (a few Yes from them in there, but), the Democrats tenative supported with some mixed nos in there). So saying "Obama's gonna make an example on this" ... yyyyymmmaybe but uh with how much shit flew over Healthcare, you're pressing him for more shit? Yeah, okay. Nice. And I fully expect that you'd blame him as soon as shit slowed down on immigration reform if he tried to take it on.

Don't get me wrong. Something needs to get done. But... I'm not exactly pleased with that article at all, it's pretty snide toward anyone pissed toward Arizona (when the bill is pretty much flat out racist) and itself snipes at Obama. So, yeah. Myself, I still just vote we flush Congress out and try again, but no one listens to me.

EDIT: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00206 <-- Source for the vote kill thing.


EDIT 2: Apologies if it's a bit inflammatory. In general, I do agree that we need to fix immigration reform, but the WSJ in general has become a written, better-styled Fox to me as of late - they hardly attempt to hide their biases. Thus my frustration - very few media outlets bother to both be balanced and truthful, and I honestly don't think there needs to be a sacrifice made of one for the other. I'd elaborate more, but I should be essaying. I just would honestly expect more of the WSJ given their position, but they seem to have fallen for the same shit most all MSM has. Blrgl.

[Cmdr_King]

Well, there's no real provisions for that, barring them all dying.  But apparently causing that would be a crime.

[NotMiki]

A few thoughts on Arizona's immigration law and the WSJ editorial.

A little legal mistake in the WSJ piece that's bugging me but illustrates how dangerous this law is: they say the law allows police to stop suspected immigrants then arrest them even if they don't commit a crime.  That's not exactly true.  They are committing a crime because the law makes being in Arizona without proper immigration status a crime in and of itself, which is why police can now demand papers of whoever they have a "reasonable suspicion" is an illegal.  

The law doesn't define what a reasonable suspicion is, so there's nothing explicitly racial in the text, but we all know better than that, don't we?  The effect is clear: anyone who is Hispanic must have their identification on them at all times or risk arrest, period.  That's pretty fucking shocking.  As a country we don't require our citizens to have ID cards.  Now we're a country that doesn't require its citizens to have ID cards unless you're brown-skinned and live in Arizona.

There's nothing inherently wrong with an editorial being politicized, by the way, because editorial boards are by definition givers of opinions, not fact-deliverers.  I'm generally unimpressed with WSJ's editorials that I read, but that's a different matter.  And it's true Arizona is the victim of national paralysis on immigration, but saying Obama is going to/has politicized the law, however, is silly.  The law was hyperpolitical to begin with, and no one on either side of the debate should pretend otherwise.  Likewise, accusing Obama of not delivering immigration reform in an election year is true, but it's hardly his fault alone, he just gets top billing, because WSJ.  Look at the Republicans' axiomatic opposition to pretty much anything the Dems introduce.

EDIT: An extraordinarily angry Linda Greenhouse (NYT Supreme Court reporter) on the Arizona bill.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/breathing-while-undocumented/?ref=opinion

EDIT2: As far as the politics are concerned, the Republican governor of Arizona has seen her strong lead late last year deteriorate as Hispanics shore up support to her Democratic challenger.  As one might expect, following her signing of the bill, she's more popular than ever with Republicans in the state, and anathema to Hispanics.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/terry-goddard-pulls-ahead_n_553823.html