You're right -- Palin is clearly more experienced!
Actually, I didn't state that. I said their experience is in the same ballpark. I'll granting Obama the edge but she is running for the position of understudy, he is running for the leading role. Her experience is not as anemic as the Democratic talking points suggest, nor as robust as the padded resume produced by McCain's campaign. Political neophytes like Obama and Palin always end up doing some ill-advised resume padding. Palin's "foreign policy" experience is non-existent and the lame attempts to suggest otherwise are self-defeating. Obama's executive experience is likewise non-existent, spinning the running of his own campaign (apparently without a campaign manager?) as executive experience is pretty lame.
Let's all agree though. People who disagree with us are not just wrong but unqualified, obviously liars and cheats whose every accomplishment is fraudulent.
You're right. She discovered corruption in the oil board because the commissioner was using state eq to run party business. She then bravely outed him, not to promote herself, but because it was the right thing to do! Never mind that her lieutenant governor run was *run out of her mayor's office*.
You're misunderstanding the timing of the events. And, underestimating the power that Ruedrich had as head of her party and as someone tightly tied to her political sponsors. For a relative nobody like Palin taking on the party chair and the governor who appointed you to your position isn't a very safe way to promote yourself, especially if you're barred yourself from talking publicly about the matter. Reudich nearly weathered the storm and Palin spent a long time in the political wilderness before the story came out and she was vindicated. If it was self-serving self-promotion she was awfully far-sighted and played a long game to reap the benefits. The allegations were also about more than campaigning from the public office but about leaking documents to the companies being regulated & favoring certain companies over others.
As for her own offenses in campaigning from a public office. Granted, and she admitted to it. That being said there's a difference in degree to the point of being a difference in kind between using the small town mayors office (a position with no power outside that small town) when running your underfunded first state-wide campaign and making fundraising appeals to oil company executives from the office of the board regulating them. The later illustrates *why* politicians are barred from politicking & fundraising from their offices rather more clearly than the former. I suspect there's not much more "there" there. Aside from the rookie mistake of using the physical edifice of the office and her mayor's office email not much seems to have come of the allegations. We're talking Al Gore level of corruption rather than Al Capone. Her rather well connected opponents dug into it and used what they found in the campaign. Certainly there were some violations but nothing on the order of what Ruedrich and Renkes were up to. Arguably having that skeleton in your closet makes taking a stand on the similar but more serious violations of your superiors that much more risky.
and a budget that is overflowing with taxes from oil.... experience is running stuff when things are tough and people oppose you.
So, just as a hypothetical... Imagine a junior politician who gets a break and is given a position by her political sponsors on a board overseeing the most influential industry in the state (the one that causes the budget to overflow). She discovers that this board is rife with corruption, as are her own sponsors. You wouldn't describe this as "tough, and people oppose you"?
While Alaska may be *easy* to run because of all the Oil money, the willingness and more importantly *effectiveness* in taking on the big oil companies in that environment isn't easy.
Let me be clear, i don't think Palin has a wealth of experienced, Little enough that if she were running for the top slot it would be a deal breaker. She had one moment of true political courage (as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission) which lead to some significant political success (defeating an entrenched incumbent and a popular former governor), and finally one major executive accomplishment (negating the Gas Pipeline deal and renegotiating it). Very impressive for a still young career, but not quite the qualifications I'd like to see in a presidential candidate. Ideally I'd like a candidate with more staying power. Someone where the honeymoon is over, they've seen more ups and downs in office... it's just galling to see Obama's people make this argument. Obama is perhaps the least experience person ever to get a major party nomination, a level of experience which is in the same ballpark as Palin's. Rookie senator, rookie governor. His major claim to political prominence is his ability as an orator, which isn't nothing. He has had some legislative successes, and like Palin he bucked his own party (though rather less dramatically) to get some of them.
This is the reason the Democrats are already dropping the "she's inexperienced" line of attack on Palin. Every day debating experience is a day they lose the argument even when they score a few debating points. What the argument is often matters more than who "wins" the debate. If the argument is about "experience" or "being ready to lead" McCain wins the argument. Some pundits have argued that by picking Palin McCain threw out the ability to make the experience argument. On the contrary though whether by design or by sheer luck she's served as an effective trap, she got Democrats attacking on precisely the point that McCain wants the debate to be about.
She is blatantly unqualified to be VP (or governor for that matter)
You can certainly say that you disagree with her. Certainly on that basis she is "unqualified" in your eyes. But in terms of resume she stacks up pretty favorably against Obama and certainly against Paul. Don't get me wrong, I was a Paul supporter and intend to vote libertarian in the general election... I just find the whole inexperience thing a bit rich coming from the supporters of a rookie Senator or in our case a member of the house.
We usually end up electing governors precisely because they have the most relevant experience. Let's face it being a Chief Executive of a state is much more akin to being President than being a member of a committee of 100 or in the case of the house: 435. Her short time in office has been marked by a lot of "Energy in the Executive" sacking Murkowski's cronies, negating the sweetheart deal he had made with the big oil companies and renegotiating it on terms much more favorable to the state. Needless to say in a state where more than any other politicians are "owned" by big oil, pushing through the new plan over their active opposition isn't something to be demeaned.
Remember the political appeal that let her defeat the incumbent of her own party, and then a still popular former Democratic governor wasn't her stint as mayor of Wasilla, but as Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. She took on the oil companies and her own party on the issue of corruption ultimately resigning in protest and filing ethics complaints against a fellow board member (and Republican party chairman) that led to his resignation & a record fine as well as the resignation of the (again Republican) State Attorney General.
The above also speaks to this idea that she "..is on another level of political servanthood." It will probably be true since she'll be a VP candidate and they all do as they're told. But there's nothing in her resume to suggest that she is more pliable than other politicians to do as she is told, not rock the boat or put her party above the responsibilities of her position. In fact there is a great deal to suggest the opposite.
So, we don't allow them to start competing until they are 16? Uhm, which planet are you on? These girls compete (around the world) well before they turn 16.
I'm not talking about all national & local competitions across the world but senior-level international competitions. The age restrictions aren't set by the olympic committee but by the Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique, and they apply to all international competitions recognized by the FIG (The World Championship, the World Cup series and the Olympics).
The age restriction is entirely geared to keep certain (U.S.A) countries happy. Nobody else gives a shit.
I don't know that the USA is a particular proponent of the age restriction as opposed to other nations represented on the FIG's governing board. History suggests otherwise, they tried to get a waiver from the FIG so a 12 year old could compete in '79 World Championship. For that matter I doubt the eastern european countries that got caught in age falsification scandals in the '80's were particularly against the regulations. Since they were willing to cheat on the regulations it gave them an advantage over nations where the government is less involved (and invested in the success of) their athletic organizations.
The rationale for not allowing girls under sixteen from competing at that level is NOT that they have an undue advantage but because the hard impacts of gymnastic training and competition is bad for kids whose bones are still growing. This isn't a concern with a lot of other sports (like swimming for instance where there are younger kids competing). The health issue is a valid concern, I know a couple of girls who've completely destroyed their knees in this way. One is an adult now who hasn't done gymnastics in many years who still has chronic leg problems that are unlikely to ever go away. The other is still a kid (the daughter of a friend) who may be looking at the same outcome. Because young girls have huge advantages in flexibility they they are pushed (by themselves & by the system) beyond what's healthy to compete at the highest level. The hope was that by not allowing them to compete at the highest levels of international competition they wouldn't be pushed to such an unhealthy degree.
Personally though I'm ambivalent about the age restriction. Yes, it's a valid concern, But young gymnasts are still going to push themselves (and be pushed by others) beyond what's probably safe or healthy even at lower levels of competition or just in preparation for when they will be old enough to compete. Perhaps if all gymnastic competition at all levels were restricted it would minimize the issue. The two girls I know with these problems never competed at those highest levels yet still have the health issues they have.
Re read it. The first paragraph says what kinds of cases are heard by ANY federal court. The second paragraph says what the SUPREME court's specific responsibilities are. The first of paragraph 2 are those cases where it has original jurisdiction. The second bit is saying that it has appellate power in all other cases "before mentioned" (in paragraph one) and it is this appellate power which is subject to "such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make".
The supreme court is only granted those two jurisdictions. Original jurisdiction in some cases and appellate jurisdiction in all others. There is no special jurisdiction where the supreme court has an immediate appellate jurisdiction bypassing inferior appellate courts. This is the only place in the constitution where the supreme court is granted it's appellate powers. It is those appellate powers which strangely enough are subject to "such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make". That portion of the constitution is called the "exceptions and regulations clause" and the practice is known as "jurisdiction stripping" (though that can also refer to congress stripping inferior courts of jurisdiction under their in Section I power to ordain and grant jurisdiction to inferior courts in the first place/)
This power HAS been in fact been exercised on one occasion. Congress suspended the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the case Ex parte McCardle in 1868. The case was already before the court and congress wrote a law specifically exempting that case from the court's jurisdiction. The court said "OK, you can do that, so we're done here." (well actually they said: "We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution; and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words.... It is quite clear, therefore, that this court cannot proceed to pronounce judgment in this case, for it has no longer jurisdiction of the appeal...")
Increasingly, the written opinions of the Supreme Court is our real constitution, not the 200+ year old document itself.
There ARE extremely powerful checks on the courts power right in the constitution but they're so powerful that no-one dares to use them, sort of the constitutional nuclear option. Article III, section 2 states that the court's appellate jurisdiction is subject to congressional regulation and *EXEMPTIONS*. Think about the implications of that, Congress can on it's own authority create exemptions to the courts appellate jurisdiction which is where the court would review if something is constitutional or not. In theory congress could pass a law they know the court would strike down and add language to the effect that "This law is exempt from the court's jurisdiction". Their constitutional power to create such an exemption is unambiguous but using it would precipitate a major constitutional crisis.
What exactly was small about massive defense spending,...
First off conservatism isn't defined by GW Bush. He's no exemplar of conservative thought or policy and has been consistently criticized from the right. Most people aren't terribly consistent in their political ideology, ESPECIALLY politicians since they must appeal to a broad coalition of support and most people have only the fuzziest political ideals. He no more defines conservatism than Clinton defined liberalism. You could make a decent case that as a practical matter Clinton who declared the "end of big government" and who's signature domestic policy ended up being welfare reform was more conservative than Bush who's signature domestic policies where massive increases in Education and Medicare spending. There's a strong pull on Presidents to achieve political success by stealing plays from their opponents playbook - you get your opponents votes because they actually agree with your policy and your own parties votes out of party loyalty. So Bush was able to get a "No Child Left Behind" policy sponsored and largely drafted by Ted Kennedy enacted with more Democratic than Republican votes... that didn't stop the Democrats who voted for it from castigating it as another "conservative" blunder by Bush once it proved unpopular though.
That being said, the classical liberal ideology that's often associated with conservatism in the US considers defense and police powers as the ONLY legitimate use of government power. The logic is something like this: Government governs by force (ultimately by violence or the threat of it). Therefore, government is only legitimate when acting in situations where the use of force is morally justified which basically boils down to defense. "(Law) is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense." - Bastiat
So from that classically liberal ideology spending on defense is at least within the proper scope of government whereas most of the other stuff government does is illegitimate.
... and trying to legislate morality?
Well, those trying to "legislate morality" aren't usually the same as those calling for smaller government. Political parties are coalitions, the libertarian right one usually thinks of when talking about the desire for smaller government aren't exactly the same folks as the religious right one would think of wanting to "legislate morality". I think it says something though that the libertarians have at least in the past found the religious right more palatable as political allies than the Left. The RR's desire to "legislate morality" was less offensive to small government types than the left's desire to legislate everything else. Indeed it seems to me that as a practical matter at least as much of the legislation of morality is coming from the left as from the right. "Sin" taxes on alcohol, tobacco and firearms and regulations about who, when, where and how they may be used are all coming from the left. Even in disputes directly between the left and the religious right it is almost as often the left that is using government to impose a moral judgement on someone who doesn't share that same moral code. Take the example of an evangelical that doesn't want to rent property to a gay couple. Which party in the dispute wants government to impose it's moral judgements on a private individual that doesn't share them?
Please, though, explain to us how this is somehow gaming the system or breaking rules?
It's not against the rules, but it's arguably "gaming the system" - working within the rules to attain a result which grants you an unfair advantage or a result opposite that the rules were intended to insure. Most people naively think that the congress debates the great issues of the day and then votes on them. The idea that you can block a vote you might lose, or to avoid having to go on the record with your position strikes most people as an abuse of parliamentary procedure even if it's done in a way that rigorously follows the letter of those procedures. SO... the republicans engage in a little childish political theater to draw attention to it. It's childish, but then again it's not, often the nature of parliamentary procedure is such that political theater to highlight the majority's little hypocrisies is they only way to hold them accountable for them. The Democrats engaged in the same manufactured outrage and publicity stunts when they were in the minority as well.
In this case, a court has taken action against posters: it has revealed their identities, thus exposing them to harassment and other consequences from private parties. Since the court is a government agency, it can't do that.
For the most part I agree with your position. People get confused about free speech all the time thinking that it affords some obligation on private parties to approve, promote, not criticize etc.. Yet they are fine with laws that expressly forbid the kind of political pamphleteering that seemed most dear to the founders.
BUT, you are wrong in this case. Free speech, nor any other right found in the constitution is utterly without limits. I have the right to bear arms but not to brandish a pistol in your face. I have the right to free speech but if I use lies to defraud you I can't claim that since all I did was talk I'm immune from legal consequences based on my right to free speech. In the USA we have comparatively weak defamation laws precisely because of the potential impact on people's freedom of speech. BUT, ultimately you can be sued by an individual about which you have said things you know are untrue with the intent to harm them. In court you will get to make your case and the truth of your statements will be an absolute defense, or your own ignorance of the truth, or the absence of malice, or the fact that the claimant wasn't actually harmed by your speech will all get you off... these are not unreasonable limitations of free-speech and the guys that wrote the phrase into the constitution didn't even perceive a potential conflict. From the founding until New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964 defamation laws were seen as totally immune from a free speech defense. Until that time it was an area of law that was completely unrelated to free speech rights (like my fraud example above). Since then the courts have perceived a conflict and defamation laws have been weakened but obviously not abolished. (Hugo Black took your position but his view obviously didn't prevail.)
For one, their "pro-gun" viewpoints probably don't consider handguns or things like concealed carry.
What makes you say that? They're one of only two states in the union that allows concealed carry *without a permit*. Plus their state law forbids localities to write hand gun regulations so no locality can supersede the very liberal (in the old sense) state law. They are far more pro-hand gun and pro-concealed carry than almost any other state, even the other "red" states. I suspect you are projecting your own beliefs onto Alaskans rather than objectively perceiving where they actually stand.
If you haven't noticed, the Bush administration hasn't been particularly conservative in the conventional/traditional sense. In fact, given how much money Bush spent, you could argue that he's not a conservative at all.
I hadn't brought Bush up at all. But yes, I have noticed and most conservatives have noticed as well. He's a perfect exemplar of Nixon's old advice to "run to the right, govern to the left", though it hasn't worked out that well for him politically. His major domestic policy initiatives would be a source of pride for any liberal democrat had they been behind it. Huge increases in domestic spending on health care (Medicare prescription drug benefit) and education ("No child left behind" - a law largely written by Ted Kennedy which passed with more Democratic than Republican votes despite Democrats bashing Bush with it when it proved unpopular). Bush is only considered conservative because of his rhetoric, the "R" after his name and for his aggressive foreign policy (which paleo-conservatives and conservative libertarians don't consider conservative at all... ).
There's seemingly an inexorable pull to steal policy positions from you're opponents when you're president, I think it's because a president *must* be seen to succeed politically and the only way to guarantee that is if you propose to implement your opponents policies. Party discipline gets you most of your parties votes despite their misgivings; Sincere desire gets your opponents votes. You win a big vote, are perceived as a political mastermind and get to implement a major policy proposal. In domestic policy that's been Bush's modus operandi as it was Clinton's in mirror image before him.
Like I said... anarcho-socialist. The government should attempt to provide for the well-being of its citizens, but also shouldn't attempt to regulate every aspect of its citizens lives.
I guess I don't see a huge "socialist" component to the thoughts of the Alaskans aside from the share of oil money they get from the state which you didn't bring up. Alaskan political thought seems to tilt towards typically western conservative libertarianism. With some exceptions of course, very few people are real consistent or doctrinaire in their political beliefs one way or the other. *Everyone* likes socialism when it's writing *them* a check. It takes a pretty committed libertarian to turn down "free" money. On the other hand *everyone* hates socialism when it's telling them to do something they'd rather not.
Umm... most of the bullet items in your list describe fairly conventional conservative opinions. Gun Rights, Small government, Pro-military is about as conventionally conservative as you can get. You've essentially described the Reagan era Republican party platform. Drug legalization & anti-surveillance are less conventionally republican but pretty commonly held corollaries of #7 among conservative intellectuals. Only 4 & 5 are problematic from a conservative ideology though you'd still find plenty of conservative's that advocate for either. Though, support for either is usually for one or the other but not both... the libertarian right that is in opposition to the Religious Right would also oppose government involvement in mandating alternative energy whereas there are some voices on the Religious Right that are comfortable with environmental mandates as part of mankind's obligation as "stewards" of God's creation.
I'm sorry, but do you really think bike trails and fountains are pork?
Yes, almost by definition. "Pork Barrel" spending means federal spending for local projects to benefit the congressman's own constituents so they'll vote for him. In theory a congressman writing a law that gives funding for bike trails to the states or the national park service to spend as they see fit wouldn't be "pork barrel". IMO still not within the Federal government's mandate but not "Pork". But as is more usual an amendment submitted by a congressman to fund a particular bike path that happens to be in his district... well that IS pork barrel spending.
The problem is the really the first scenario though rather than the second. It's arguably the congressman's *job* to get that pork. They are called "representatives" for a reason, they represent the interests of their local community. The problem arises when we make everything a federal issue rather than a state or local one. There's no reason why the federal government should be spending one red cent on bike paths' (outside of localities under their direct control like military bases or DC). It's a purely local issue better dealt with by local governments and completely outside the scope of the powers given to the federal government. But when our view of the federal governments jurisdiction changed to be all encompassing and we now write laws like the first scenario where the federal government becomes in effect everyone's local government... well of course the congressmen will represent their communities (as arguably they should) to see that they get their share of that federal money (and a bit more if they have the pull.)
Granted, there are ways to escape a given government. I like the idea of federalism too because it makes some progress in de-monopolizing government power. But in the end for each given locale there is a given government and the costs and barriers of escaping it's jurisdiction are pretty high even if it's not actively opposing you "voting with your feet".
So, I don't feel my government on a whole is coercing me as you stated. I consider myself having a social pact between my government
Well, sure. But the contract is that you obey government mandates under the threat of punishment enforced by armed might. That is a good thing. I'm not opposed to such a contract. Human nature has a darker side and the threat of armed force is sometimes necessary. But, it's important to remember that this is the nature of the social contract with government. It is "government" it governs, it controls, and it does so by raw force. I think because of this the specific terms of the contract should reserve government coercion to those areas where enforcment by armed might is truly justified. I like Bastiat's conception that (legitimate) government is the collective expression of the individual right of self-defense. Anything the government enforces that wouldn't be justified in an individual acting in his self defense is illegitimate.
Stupid ? The total sum of all power in a country is constant.
OK, I was going to question this assumption, but let's go with it. Your ideal is to collect all power into a single unescapable entity that is controlled (in theory) by the majority will of the people via democratic elections. The liberal* solution is to leave that power directly in the hands of individuals. Yes, in a system that leaves power to the individuals inequities will arise between them. Some individuals will associate together and through their wealth wield far more power than the rest. BUT without the coercive power of government to assist them these nascent plutocrats can't enforce internal discipline among themselves. in fact under a liberal regime the coercive power of government will prevent most efforts to enforce such internal discipline necessary to form a true plutocracy. So, when an individual among these aspiring plutocrats sees personal advantage in acting against the plutocratic group he will do so creating alternatives (which are themselves power) for all other individuals. When some other individual not numbered among the plutocrats chooses to compete them he is free to do so, and will on some occasions succeed. For these reasons those truly plutocratic capitalists generally aren't at all libertarian in outlook because they need government's assistance in maintaining barriers to entry against potential competitors and the enforcement of coordination among their constituent members that keeps them all fat and happy. Big government's best friend is quite often big business. It is THIS dynamic which leads to plutocracy, not economic liberalization. Denied the reigns of government it's really nonsensical to call even the wealthiest businessman a "plutocrat" (since the ploutos is not engaged in kratein). Libertarians are as opposed to plutocracy as you are.
The mere existence of alternatives which is the inevitable result of a liberal regime is power in the hands of even the lowest individual. It is even in it's way the power to hold the "plutocrats" accountable. Accountable to the individual not just the vague and general will of 50.1% of the electorate. Accountable in specific, fine-grained specific ways not just in the broadest overarching policy directions.
If only there were a party that promised to make everyone work for the common good of the community instead of their own selfish ends.;)
Yeah, a party like that couldn't possibly take the collapsed ruin of a backwards agrarian nation like tsarist Russia and turn it into a superpower which made the US shake in its boots for half a century. Or a partly occupied and economically abused joke like imperial China, for that matter.
Hmm... actually I wasn't thinking of the Communists when I wrote that but of the Fascists. The fascists were more likely to emphasize unity and the common good in opposition to selfishness whereas the communists emphasized equality. Granted, there isn't a huge distinction.
*I prefer the term "liberal" in it's original 19th century usage despite it's common use today to mean almost the exact opposite. Libertarian is just unwieldy and it implies to me a narrow and rigid dogma that I don't always ascribe to whereas "liberal" was a broader term. Perhaps it just comes from reading too much material where "liberal" is used in that earlier more technical meaning but I'm hoping that the recent enthusiasm for the term "progressive" on the left leave "liberal" available for it's original use.
Governments wield a lot of power. Take them out of the picture, and economics will self-organize to another group having a lot of power, if only by virtue that they make a lot of money and continue to make more until the point that they wield enough economic power to be de-facto government organizations
This is a fine sounding argument, but it simply isn't the case. If government were truly taken "out of the picture" you're right that other groups would self-organize into de-facto governments but wealth wouldn't be the criteria by which such groups would succeed but rather how well armed and organized they are. Fortunately libertarians don't advocate taking government "out of the picture" but simply limiting it's role.
I don't make the point about self-organizing armed groups in a state of anarchy just to be facetious. It illustrates the vast difference between government power and the "power" of any self-organized group in a free market economy. First, government power is coercive, it compels obedience by armed force. This applies to every statute and regulation no matter how minor or how slight the punishment for violating it. If you do not submit you receive whatever minor punishment is alloted which is itself enforced by a greater punishment, and that by a greater punishment still until you arrive at arrest and imprisonment which is itself enforced with the gun. No merely economic power has such raw power and it is the *legitimate* use of the government's coercive power to prevent such abuses. WalMart might deal harshly with it's suppliers but the ONLY punishment it has is to cease buying their products. They don't send armed men to place you in shackles. Secondly, government power is by necessity a monopoly. On the other hand even aside from anti-trust laws monopolies are hard to maintain in competitive free-market (unless they are granted & maintained by the coercive power of government). A bad law is inescapable, a bad company policy is easily escaped by dealing with a competitor. You can't quit your government, you can quit your employer. A company may deal with you in a way that is unfair, even cruel, but it's ability to do so is actually quite limited. Governments may also deal with you in ways that are unfair and cruel and their power to do so is almost unlimited.
To be fair, the libertarian rants on Slashdot typically center around how the weak should be left to die as they are nothing but parasites on the strong, which is not all that dissimilar from the justification Nazis gave for the Holocaust and their other atrocities.
Really? That's a "typical" libertarian rant?
, so I can see why people might confuse these two.
Yes, sadly some people are stupid enough to get confused between a party that thinks government should wield unlimited power and a party that believes in the minimum possible government. For an encore they go on to prove that black is white and get themselves killed on the next zebra crossing.
"I'd rather see you all dead from hunger or disease than pay taxes" might be a honest political view, but it isn't going to win you any votes:).
If only there were a party that promised to make everyone work for the common good of the community instead of their own selfish ends.;)
Despite the hype he is NOT facing 38 years in prison. 38 years is just the number you get if you add up the sentences for each of the crimes. (And who's fault is it that the prosecutors have that many crimes to add up?).
If he is found guilty of all those crimes he will serve CONCURRENT sentences for them. SO if he was up for 38 felonies which each had a 1 year sentence he would serve all those 38 years with just one actual year in prison. That's not exactly how it works out of course. He's up for 69 felonies and some of the felonies have longer sentences than the others, so the practical result is he'll serve time for the single most serious crime he committed. If it goes to trial he's not even likely to face all those charges, the prosecutors will focus on the handful of most serious and easiest to prove charges and drop the others if only to avoid muddying the waters at trial.
CONSECUTIVE sentencing is theoretically possible, it's mandated for some serious crimes (not the case here) and can be imposed by the judge at his discretion given the gravity and circumstances of the crime. Spectacularly unlikely here, and probably overturned by a more sane appeals court if it was imposed.
AT WORST I suppose if the judge felt that the resulting concurrent sentence wasn't long enough he could tack on one of the sentences as a consecutive sentence at the end. So say the kid gets the maximum 3 years for 2nd degree burglary as the longest of his concurrent sentences but the judge decides that's too lenient so he makes the identity theft sentence to run consecutively to add another 18 months. Even this type of scenario doesn't seem very likely, it's just as likely the judge decides he's basically a good kid, a good candidate for rehabilitation and mitigates his sentence so he only serves time on one of the lesser charges.
It's amazing how they can turn a talented, although with obvious problems kid, into an outwright criminal.
I'm confused. Are you suggesting that "they" induced him into committing these crimes? Or do you have some other definition of criminal? (Hint: the definition is "someone who commits a crime") As far as I could tell he turned himself into a criminal without "their" help, and "they" simply caught him.
He is 18, for God's sake!!
Exactly: Far too old to infantilize by saying he's too immature to be responsible for his own actions.
That being said a 38 year sentence would be extreme and unjust. Fortunately, that's just hype as mentioned by others if he's found guilty he'll face concurrent sentencing resulting in a sentence equal to the single most serious crime, not even taking into account the possibility that that sentence will itself be mitigated to a lesser charge.
The price of oil isn't high because it's expensive to produce but because people want more of it than is readily available at the moment, and because of speculation by investors.
$50 is how much it costs them to produce a barrel of crude, what the oil industry calls "lifting cost". By comparison the average lifting cost of traditional crude oil pumped out of the ground is around $6.00 per barrel. (Lifting costs from 2006). To be fair you have to include the finding cost of oil too so let's call the total production cost average around $15/barrel.
As you can see $50/gallon is a very high COST for crude oil. It's almost too high for anyone to consider investing the serious money required to start producing at any real volume. At this point demand is so far above supply and appears likely to remain that way long enough that it might be worth the risk, but it is a HUGE risk. Imagine you throw the billions of dollars necessary to ramp up production using this process so that a decade or so from now you're producing oil on a meaningful scale. What happens if the economies of India & China falter during that time drying up demand. It's a given that your conventional competitors will have been spending the same decade desperately scrambling to bring traditional oil wells into production at a MUCH lower cost per barrel. Other businesses will likely have been exploring other alternatives sources of oil further increasing supply (The Orinoco tar sands? Shale Oil? Oil from coal?). Oil could drop to the $30-$40/barrel price it held steady at for the two decades prior to the current bubble.
Granted, it was a proposal by a Nazi leader Alfred Rosenberg. It was too radical and was never really attempted. If the validity of the telegram is contested, fine... There's plenty of other writings by Rosenberg and other influential Nazi's and people within those "reform movements" that reflect the same thinking. The Nazi's certainly DID attempt part of that program by founding the Protestant Reich Church.
The German Faith Movement and Positive Christianity were simply reform movements within the Lutheran church
You could as easily say Naziism itself was "simply a reform movement within the German polity". Positive Christianity was not simply a reform movement within the Lutheran church it was a reform movement within the Lutheran church promoted by the Nazi party. 'Positive Christianity" thought that orthodox christianity was too wimpy with it's focusing on Christ's death on the cross, forgiveness of sins and all that icky jewish stuff that comes before Matthew, and with an enlightened "Higher Criticism" rejection of Biblical literalism and authority it was free to remake Christianity in a Nazi image. The "German Christian" movement that believed in "Positive Christianity" founded the "German Evangelical Church", of course it endorsed the Nazi's - it was their creation. The alternative was the "Confessing Church". Note: don't get too confused by the term "Evangelical" the various names of groups on either side.. We're talking about Lutherans here. The formal name for the lutheran church in Germany has almost always included the word "Evangelical" (it's currently the Evangelical Church in Germany). That doesn't make either side "evangelical" in it's currently used sense. The German Christian movement with it's embrace of higher criticism, rejection of Biblical authority as well as most of the doctrines that evangelicals would define as essential to christianity certainly weren't "evangelical:" in it's current sense. Even the confessing church though would be found wanting. Certainly their "neo-orthodoxy" would be seen as preferable to the other option on offer but it would be hard to make the case that they were evangelical in our current sense either (though Bonhoeffer's "Cost of Discipleship" is widely read by evangelicals, and Barth is accorded a certain amount of respect as a theologian.)
The "German Faith Movement" on the other hand wasn't "within the Lutheran Church" at all, or any church for that matter. It was a distinct religion on it's own. Self-professedly pagan and a self-conscious rejection of christianity.
The Nazi party clearly wanted to move Germany away from orthodox christianity towards a triumphalist, aryan pseudo-christianity that rejected much of the Bible and many central beliefs of christianity. Given that there was no separation of church and state in Germany they were largely successful in manipulating church politics, installing Nazi's in key church positions. intimidating (killing or exiling) their (theologically) conservative opponents. The officially sanctioned "christianity" of the third Reich didn't retain much that was identifiably christian.
Freya Mit Uns, huh? I could have sworn I remembered that differently.
Well two points. 1) The Wehrmacht wasn't exactly in the ideological driver's seat of Naziism. If you're getting your insights into the Nazi's understanding of religion from the slogans of military units I think the slogans and symbolism of the SS would be more instructive about distinctively Nazi concepts of spirituality rather than merely German ones.
2) In any event The "Gott" of the Wehrmacht slogan as it was understood by Nazi's wasn't exactly what anyone would identify as christian. The National Reich Church, the German Faith Movement, the tent's of "Positive Christianity"... all those various Nazi religious innovations and attempts to influence German religious beliefs were either Pagan or at the very least Pagan/Christian syncretism. (or to be more accurate Pagan/Vedic Hindu/Christian syncretism). There wasn't much left of the Bible after the National Reich Church "purified" it of jewishness and the "corruptions" of the apostle Paul.
Take a look at the program of the National Reich Church. I don't think anyone would consider the religion being espoused as "christian" by even the loosest definition. Just a few highlights: 11 (forbids teachers who promote christianity), 14 (forbids publication of the Bible), 14 (forbids importation of the Bible or christian literature), 15 (Stating that Mein Kampf is the supreme document) 18 & 30 (removing crosses from churches) 21 (rejects the doctrine of forgiveness of sins) 24 (abolishes confirmation and communion).
Sure the mass of Germany was certainly "Christian". Nazi attempts to undermine Christianity provoked significant opposition, and some of their only political defeats after taking power. National cultures don't turn on a dime, but the Nazi's were remarkably transparent about where they were attempting to steer it.
Yes, and it was also Christianity which fought for that and lost. I assure you, the American South never has been a hotbed of secular humanism.
I think his point was that most other cultures never had that fight. At least not internally, the Christians (most specifically the British) imposed their resolution of that conflict onto most of the rest of humanity.
Further making my point. As it turns out the (skeptical of govenrment) judge who initially ruled against the DOI was a Reagan appointee and the (trusting of government) Judge that now rules for them is a Clinton appointee. it's not surprising since that's exactly what one would expect given the ideological bent you would suppose given who appointed them.
But, of course, to you right-wing pukes, it's the government, it's a judge, and so it's good that this decision was made to let some dumbass agency back onto the web.
I agree with the substance of your comments. But, I don't understand the "right-wing pukes" dig. What exactly is "right-wing" about comments applauding this decision? It doesn't seem like an issue that cuts neatly into a left/right conflict. Judicial overreach in the initial decision maybe? But, the defendant is a government bureaucracy getting it's comeuppance for incompetence... not a lot of sympathy from the right there. The comments applauding this latest decision don't seem so much right-wing as arrogant-geek: "Internet good!" , "Judges not smart enough to understand technology". Insofar as your comment focusses on bureaucratic incompetence it's probably the closest to a right-wing comment to this point. It's almost Reaganesque: "government is not the solution to our problem; government IS the problem."
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I didn't state that. I said their experience is in the same ballpark. I'll granting Obama the edge but she is running for the position of understudy, he is running for the leading role. Her experience is not as anemic as the Democratic talking points suggest, nor as robust as the padded resume produced by McCain's campaign. Political neophytes like Obama and Palin always end up doing some ill-advised resume padding. Palin's "foreign policy" experience is non-existent and the lame attempts to suggest otherwise are self-defeating. Obama's executive experience is likewise non-existent, spinning the running of his own campaign (apparently without a campaign manager?) as executive experience is pretty lame.
Let's all agree though. People who disagree with us are not just wrong but unqualified, obviously liars and cheats whose every accomplishment is fraudulent.
You're misunderstanding the timing of the events. And, underestimating the power that Ruedrich had as head of her party and as someone tightly tied to her political sponsors. For a relative nobody like Palin taking on the party chair and the governor who appointed you to your position isn't a very safe way to promote yourself, especially if you're barred yourself from talking publicly about the matter. Reudich nearly weathered the storm and Palin spent a long time in the political wilderness before the story came out and she was vindicated. If it was self-serving self-promotion she was awfully far-sighted and played a long game to reap the benefits. The allegations were also about more than campaigning from the public office but about leaking documents to the companies being regulated & favoring certain companies over others.
As for her own offenses in campaigning from a public office. Granted, and she admitted to it. That being said there's a difference in degree to the point of being a difference in kind between using the small town mayors office (a position with no power outside that small town) when running your underfunded first state-wide campaign and making fundraising appeals to oil company executives from the office of the board regulating them. The later illustrates *why* politicians are barred from politicking & fundraising from their offices rather more clearly than the former. I suspect there's not much more "there" there. Aside from the rookie mistake of using the physical edifice of the office and her mayor's office email not much seems to have come of the allegations. We're talking Al Gore level of corruption rather than Al Capone. Her rather well connected opponents dug into it and used what they found in the campaign. Certainly there were some violations but nothing on the order of what Ruedrich and Renkes were up to. Arguably having that skeleton in your closet makes taking a stand on the similar but more serious violations of your superiors that much more risky.
So, just as a hypothetical... Imagine a junior politician who gets a break and is given a position by her political sponsors on a board overseeing the most influential industry in the state (the one that causes the budget to overflow). She discovers that this board is rife with corruption, as are her own sponsors. You wouldn't describe this as "tough, and people oppose you"?
While Alaska may be *easy* to run because of all the Oil money, the willingness and more importantly *effectiveness* in taking on the big oil companies in that environment isn't easy.
Let me be clear, i don't think Palin has a wealth of experienced, Little enough that if she were running for the top slot it would be a deal breaker. She had one moment of true political courage (as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission) which lead to some significant political success (defeating an entrenched incumbent and a popular former governor), and finally one major executive accomplishment (negating the Gas Pipeline deal and renegotiating it). Very impressive for a still young career, but not quite the qualifications I'd like to see in a presidential candidate. Ideally I'd like a candidate with more staying power. Someone where the honeymoon is over, they've seen more ups and downs in office... it's just galling to see Obama's people make this argument. Obama is perhaps the least experience person ever to get a major party nomination, a level of experience which is in the same ballpark as Palin's. Rookie senator, rookie governor. His major claim to political prominence is his ability as an orator, which isn't nothing. He has had some legislative successes, and like Palin he bucked his own party (though rather less dramatically) to get some of them.
This is the reason the Democrats are already dropping the "she's inexperienced" line of attack on Palin. Every day debating experience is a day they lose the argument even when they score a few debating points. What the argument is often matters more than who "wins" the debate. If the argument is about "experience" or "being ready to lead" McCain wins the argument. Some pundits have argued that by picking Palin McCain threw out the ability to make the experience argument. On the contrary though whether by design or by sheer luck she's served as an effective trap, she got Democrats attacking on precisely the point that McCain wants the debate to be about.
You can certainly say that you disagree with her. Certainly on that basis she is "unqualified" in your eyes. But in terms of resume she stacks up pretty favorably against Obama and certainly against Paul. Don't get me wrong, I was a Paul supporter and intend to vote libertarian in the general election... I just find the whole inexperience thing a bit rich coming from the supporters of a rookie Senator or in our case a member of the house.
We usually end up electing governors precisely because they have the most relevant experience. Let's face it being a Chief Executive of a state is much more akin to being President than being a member of a committee of 100 or in the case of the house: 435. Her short time in office has been marked by a lot of "Energy in the Executive" sacking Murkowski's cronies, negating the sweetheart deal he had made with the big oil companies and renegotiating it on terms much more favorable to the state. Needless to say in a state where more than any other politicians are "owned" by big oil, pushing through the new plan over their active opposition isn't something to be demeaned.
Remember the political appeal that let her defeat the incumbent of her own party, and then a still popular former Democratic governor wasn't her stint as mayor of Wasilla, but as Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. She took on the oil companies and her own party on the issue of corruption ultimately resigning in protest and filing ethics complaints against a fellow board member (and Republican party chairman) that led to his resignation & a record fine as well as the resignation of the (again Republican) State Attorney General.
The above also speaks to this idea that she "..is on another level of political servanthood." It will probably be true since she'll be a VP candidate and they all do as they're told. But there's nothing in her resume to suggest that she is more pliable than other politicians to do as she is told, not rock the boat or put her party above the responsibilities of her position. In fact there is a great deal to suggest the opposite.
I'm not talking about all national & local competitions across the world but senior-level international competitions. The age restrictions aren't set by the olympic committee but by the Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique, and they apply to all international competitions recognized by the FIG (The World Championship, the World Cup series and the Olympics).
I don't know that the USA is a particular proponent of the age restriction as opposed to other nations represented on the FIG's governing board. History suggests otherwise, they tried to get a waiver from the FIG so a 12 year old could compete in '79 World Championship. For that matter I doubt the eastern european countries that got caught in age falsification scandals in the '80's were particularly against the regulations. Since they were willing to cheat on the regulations it gave them an advantage over nations where the government is less involved (and invested in the success of) their athletic organizations.
The rationale for not allowing girls under sixteen from competing at that level is NOT that they have an undue advantage but because the hard impacts of gymnastic training and competition is bad for kids whose bones are still growing. This isn't a concern with a lot of other sports (like swimming for instance where there are younger kids competing). The health issue is a valid concern, I know a couple of girls who've completely destroyed their knees in this way. One is an adult now who hasn't done gymnastics in many years who still has chronic leg problems that are unlikely to ever go away. The other is still a kid (the daughter of a friend) who may be looking at the same outcome. Because young girls have huge advantages in flexibility they they are pushed (by themselves & by the system) beyond what's healthy to compete at the highest level. The hope was that by not allowing them to compete at the highest levels of international competition they wouldn't be pushed to such an unhealthy degree.
Personally though I'm ambivalent about the age restriction. Yes, it's a valid concern, But young gymnasts are still going to push themselves (and be pushed by others) beyond what's probably safe or healthy even at lower levels of competition or just in preparation for when they will be old enough to compete. Perhaps if all gymnastic competition at all levels were restricted it would minimize the issue. The two girls I know with these problems never competed at those highest levels yet still have the health issues they have.
Re read it. The first paragraph says what kinds of cases are heard by ANY federal court. The second paragraph says what the SUPREME court's specific responsibilities are. The first of paragraph 2 are those cases where it has original jurisdiction. The second bit is saying that it has appellate power in all other cases "before mentioned" (in paragraph one) and it is this appellate power which is subject to "such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make".
The supreme court is only granted those two jurisdictions. Original jurisdiction in some cases and appellate jurisdiction in all others. There is no special jurisdiction where the supreme court has an immediate appellate jurisdiction bypassing inferior appellate courts. This is the only place in the constitution where the supreme court is granted it's appellate powers. It is those appellate powers which strangely enough are subject to "such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make". That portion of the constitution is called the "exceptions and regulations clause" and the practice is known as "jurisdiction stripping" (though that can also refer to congress stripping inferior courts of jurisdiction under their in Section I power to ordain and grant jurisdiction to inferior courts in the first place/)
This power HAS been in fact been exercised on one occasion. Congress suspended the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the case Ex parte McCardle in 1868. The case was already before the court and congress wrote a law specifically exempting that case from the court's jurisdiction. The court said "OK, you can do that, so we're done here." (well actually they said: "We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution; and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words.... It is quite clear, therefore, that this court cannot proceed to pronounce judgment in this case, for it has no longer jurisdiction of the appeal...")
There ARE extremely powerful checks on the courts power right in the constitution but they're so powerful that no-one dares to use them, sort of the constitutional nuclear option. Article III, section 2 states that the court's appellate jurisdiction is subject to congressional regulation and *EXEMPTIONS*. Think about the implications of that, Congress can on it's own authority create exemptions to the courts appellate jurisdiction which is where the court would review if something is constitutional or not. In theory congress could pass a law they know the court would strike down and add language to the effect that "This law is exempt from the court's jurisdiction". Their constitutional power to create such an exemption is unambiguous but using it would precipitate a major constitutional crisis.
First off conservatism isn't defined by GW Bush. He's no exemplar of conservative thought or policy and has been consistently criticized from the right. Most people aren't terribly consistent in their political ideology, ESPECIALLY politicians since they must appeal to a broad coalition of support and most people have only the fuzziest political ideals. He no more defines conservatism than Clinton defined liberalism. You could make a decent case that as a practical matter Clinton who declared the "end of big government" and who's signature domestic policy ended up being welfare reform was more conservative than Bush who's signature domestic policies where massive increases in Education and Medicare spending. There's a strong pull on Presidents to achieve political success by stealing plays from their opponents playbook - you get your opponents votes because they actually agree with your policy and your own parties votes out of party loyalty. So Bush was able to get a "No Child Left Behind" policy sponsored and largely drafted by Ted Kennedy enacted with more Democratic than Republican votes... that didn't stop the Democrats who voted for it from castigating it as another "conservative" blunder by Bush once it proved unpopular though.
That being said, the classical liberal ideology that's often associated with conservatism in the US considers defense and police powers as the ONLY legitimate use of government power. The logic is something like this: Government governs by force (ultimately by violence or the threat of it). Therefore, government is only legitimate when acting in situations where the use of force is morally justified which basically boils down to defense. "(Law) is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense." - Bastiat
So from that classically liberal ideology spending on defense is at least within the proper scope of government whereas most of the other stuff government does is illegitimate.
Well, those trying to "legislate morality" aren't usually the same as those calling for smaller government. Political parties are coalitions, the libertarian right one usually thinks of when talking about the desire for smaller government aren't exactly the same folks as the religious right one would think of wanting to "legislate morality". I think it says something though that the libertarians have at least in the past found the religious right more palatable as political allies than the Left. The RR's desire to "legislate morality" was less offensive to small government types than the left's desire to legislate everything else. Indeed it seems to me that as a practical matter at least as much of the legislation of morality is coming from the left as from the right. "Sin" taxes on alcohol, tobacco and firearms and regulations about who, when, where and how they may be used are all coming from the left. Even in disputes directly between the left and the religious right it is almost as often the left that is using government to impose a moral judgement on someone who doesn't share that same moral code. Take the example of an evangelical that doesn't want to rent property to a gay couple. Which party in the dispute wants government to impose it's moral judgements on a private individual that doesn't share them?
It's not against the rules, but it's arguably "gaming the system" - working within the rules to attain a result which grants you an unfair advantage or a result opposite that the rules were intended to insure. Most people naively think that the congress debates the great issues of the day and then votes on them. The idea that you can block a vote you might lose, or to avoid having to go on the record with your position strikes most people as an abuse of parliamentary procedure even if it's done in a way that rigorously follows the letter of those procedures. SO... the republicans engage in a little childish political theater to draw attention to it. It's childish, but then again it's not, often the nature of parliamentary procedure is such that political theater to highlight the majority's little hypocrisies is they only way to hold them accountable for them. The Democrats engaged in the same manufactured outrage and publicity stunts when they were in the minority as well.
For the most part I agree with your position. People get confused about free speech all the time thinking that it affords some obligation on private parties to approve, promote, not criticize etc.. Yet they are fine with laws that expressly forbid the kind of political pamphleteering that seemed most dear to the founders.
BUT, you are wrong in this case. Free speech, nor any other right found in the constitution is utterly without limits. I have the right to bear arms but not to brandish a pistol in your face. I have the right to free speech but if I use lies to defraud you I can't claim that since all I did was talk I'm immune from legal consequences based on my right to free speech. In the USA we have comparatively weak defamation laws precisely because of the potential impact on people's freedom of speech. BUT, ultimately you can be sued by an individual about which you have said things you know are untrue with the intent to harm them. In court you will get to make your case and the truth of your statements will be an absolute defense, or your own ignorance of the truth, or the absence of malice, or the fact that the claimant wasn't actually harmed by your speech will all get you off... these are not unreasonable limitations of free-speech and the guys that wrote the phrase into the constitution didn't even perceive a potential conflict. From the founding until New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964 defamation laws were seen as totally immune from a free speech defense. Until that time it was an area of law that was completely unrelated to free speech rights (like my fraud example above). Since then the courts have perceived a conflict and defamation laws have been weakened but obviously not abolished. (Hugo Black took your position but his view obviously didn't prevail.)
What makes you say that? They're one of only two states in the union that allows concealed carry *without a permit*. Plus their state law forbids localities to write hand gun regulations so no locality can supersede the very liberal (in the old sense) state law. They are far more pro-hand gun and pro-concealed carry than almost any other state, even the other "red" states. I suspect you are projecting your own beliefs onto Alaskans rather than objectively perceiving where they actually stand.
I hadn't brought Bush up at all. But yes, I have noticed and most conservatives have noticed as well. He's a perfect exemplar of Nixon's old advice to "run to the right, govern to the left", though it hasn't worked out that well for him politically. His major domestic policy initiatives would be a source of pride for any liberal democrat had they been behind it. Huge increases in domestic spending on health care (Medicare prescription drug benefit) and education ("No child left behind" - a law largely written by Ted Kennedy which passed with more Democratic than Republican votes despite Democrats bashing Bush with it when it proved unpopular). Bush is only considered conservative because of his rhetoric, the "R" after his name and for his aggressive foreign policy (which paleo-conservatives and conservative libertarians don't consider conservative at all... ).
There's seemingly an inexorable pull to steal policy positions from you're opponents when you're president, I think it's because a president *must* be seen to succeed politically and the only way to guarantee that is if you propose to implement your opponents policies. Party discipline gets you most of your parties votes despite their misgivings; Sincere desire gets your opponents votes. You win a big vote, are perceived as a political mastermind and get to implement a major policy proposal. In domestic policy that's been Bush's modus operandi as it was Clinton's in mirror image before him.
I guess I don't see a huge "socialist" component to the thoughts of the Alaskans aside from the share of oil money they get from the state which you didn't bring up. Alaskan political thought seems to tilt towards typically western conservative libertarianism. With some exceptions of course, very few people are real consistent or doctrinaire in their political beliefs one way or the other. *Everyone* likes socialism when it's writing *them* a check. It takes a pretty committed libertarian to turn down "free" money. On the other hand *everyone* hates socialism when it's telling them to do something they'd rather not.
Umm... most of the bullet items in your list describe fairly conventional conservative opinions. Gun Rights, Small government, Pro-military is about as conventionally conservative as you can get. You've essentially described the Reagan era Republican party platform. Drug legalization & anti-surveillance are less conventionally republican but pretty commonly held corollaries of #7 among conservative intellectuals. Only 4 & 5 are problematic from a conservative ideology though you'd still find plenty of conservative's that advocate for either. Though, support for either is usually for one or the other but not both... the libertarian right that is in opposition to the Religious Right would also oppose government involvement in mandating alternative energy whereas there are some voices on the Religious Right that are comfortable with environmental mandates as part of mankind's obligation as "stewards" of God's creation.
Yes, almost by definition. "Pork Barrel" spending means federal spending for local projects to benefit the congressman's own constituents so they'll vote for him. In theory a congressman writing a law that gives funding for bike trails to the states or the national park service to spend as they see fit wouldn't be "pork barrel". IMO still not within the Federal government's mandate but not "Pork". But as is more usual an amendment submitted by a congressman to fund a particular bike path that happens to be in his district... well that IS pork barrel spending.
The problem is the really the first scenario though rather than the second. It's arguably the congressman's *job* to get that pork. They are called "representatives" for a reason, they represent the interests of their local community. The problem arises when we make everything a federal issue rather than a state or local one. There's no reason why the federal government should be spending one red cent on bike paths' (outside of localities under their direct control like military bases or DC). It's a purely local issue better dealt with by local governments and completely outside the scope of the powers given to the federal government. But when our view of the federal governments jurisdiction changed to be all encompassing and we now write laws like the first scenario where the federal government becomes in effect everyone's local government... well of course the congressmen will represent their communities (as arguably they should) to see that they get their share of that federal money (and a bit more if they have the pull.)
Granted, there are ways to escape a given government. I like the idea of federalism too because it makes some progress in de-monopolizing government power. But in the end for each given locale there is a given government and the costs and barriers of escaping it's jurisdiction are pretty high even if it's not actively opposing you "voting with your feet".
So, I don't feel my government on a whole is coercing me as you stated. I consider myself having a social pact between my government
Well, sure. But the contract is that you obey government mandates under the threat of punishment enforced by armed might. That is a good thing. I'm not opposed to such a contract. Human nature has a darker side and the threat of armed force is sometimes necessary. But, it's important to remember that this is the nature of the social contract with government. It is "government" it governs, it controls, and it does so by raw force. I think because of this the specific terms of the contract should reserve government coercion to those areas where enforcment by armed might is truly justified. I like Bastiat's conception that (legitimate) government is the collective expression of the individual right of self-defense. Anything the government enforces that wouldn't be justified in an individual acting in his self defense is illegitimate.
OK, I was going to question this assumption, but let's go with it. Your ideal is to collect all power into a single unescapable entity that is controlled (in theory) by the majority will of the people via democratic elections. The liberal* solution is to leave that power directly in the hands of individuals. Yes, in a system that leaves power to the individuals inequities will arise between them. Some individuals will associate together and through their wealth wield far more power than the rest. BUT without the coercive power of government to assist them these nascent plutocrats can't enforce internal discipline among themselves. in fact under a liberal regime the coercive power of government will prevent most efforts to enforce such internal discipline necessary to form a true plutocracy. So, when an individual among these aspiring plutocrats sees personal advantage in acting against the plutocratic group he will do so creating alternatives (which are themselves power) for all other individuals. When some other individual not numbered among the plutocrats chooses to compete them he is free to do so, and will on some occasions succeed. For these reasons those truly plutocratic capitalists generally aren't at all libertarian in outlook because they need government's assistance in maintaining barriers to entry against potential competitors and the enforcement of coordination among their constituent members that keeps them all fat and happy. Big government's best friend is quite often big business. It is THIS dynamic which leads to plutocracy, not economic liberalization. Denied the reigns of government it's really nonsensical to call even the wealthiest businessman a "plutocrat" (since the ploutos is not engaged in kratein). Libertarians are as opposed to plutocracy as you are.
The mere existence of alternatives which is the inevitable result of a liberal regime is power in the hands of even the lowest individual. It is even in it's way the power to hold the "plutocrats" accountable. Accountable to the individual not just the vague and general will of 50.1% of the electorate. Accountable in specific, fine-grained specific ways not just in the broadest overarching policy directions.
Hmm... actually I wasn't thinking of the Communists when I wrote that but of the Fascists. The fascists were more likely to emphasize unity and the common good in opposition to selfishness whereas the communists emphasized equality. Granted, there isn't a huge distinction.
*I prefer the term "liberal" in it's original 19th century usage despite it's common use today to mean almost the exact opposite. Libertarian is just unwieldy and it implies to me a narrow and rigid dogma that I don't always ascribe to whereas "liberal" was a broader term. Perhaps it just comes from reading too much material where "liberal" is used in that earlier more technical meaning but I'm hoping that the recent enthusiasm for the term "progressive" on the left leave "liberal" available for it's original use.
This is a fine sounding argument, but it simply isn't the case. If government were truly taken "out of the picture" you're right that other groups would self-organize into de-facto governments but wealth wouldn't be the criteria by which such groups would succeed but rather how well armed and organized they are. Fortunately libertarians don't advocate taking government "out of the picture" but simply limiting it's role.
I don't make the point about self-organizing armed groups in a state of anarchy just to be facetious. It illustrates the vast difference between government power and the "power" of any self-organized group in a free market economy. First, government power is coercive, it compels obedience by armed force. This applies to every statute and regulation no matter how minor or how slight the punishment for violating it. If you do not submit you receive whatever minor punishment is alloted which is itself enforced by a greater punishment, and that by a greater punishment still until you arrive at arrest and imprisonment which is itself enforced with the gun. No merely economic power has such raw power and it is the *legitimate* use of the government's coercive power to prevent such abuses. WalMart might deal harshly with it's suppliers but the ONLY punishment it has is to cease buying their products. They don't send armed men to place you in shackles. Secondly, government power is by necessity a monopoly. On the other hand even aside from anti-trust laws monopolies are hard to maintain in competitive free-market (unless they are granted & maintained by the coercive power of government). A bad law is inescapable, a bad company policy is easily escaped by dealing with a competitor. You can't quit your government, you can quit your employer. A company may deal with you in a way that is unfair, even cruel, but it's ability to do so is actually quite limited. Governments may also deal with you in ways that are unfair and cruel and their power to do so is almost unlimited.
Really? That's a "typical" libertarian rant?
Yes, sadly some people are stupid enough to get confused between a party that thinks government should wield unlimited power and a party that believes in the minimum possible government. For an encore they go on to prove that black is white and get themselves killed on the next zebra crossing.
If only there were a party that promised to make everyone work for the common good of the community instead of their own selfish ends. ;)
Despite the hype he is NOT facing 38 years in prison. 38 years is just the number you get if you add up the sentences for each of the crimes. (And who's fault is it that the prosecutors have that many crimes to add up?).
If he is found guilty of all those crimes he will serve CONCURRENT sentences for them. SO if he was up for 38 felonies which each had a 1 year sentence he would serve all those 38 years with just one actual year in prison. That's not exactly how it works out of course. He's up for 69 felonies and some of the felonies have longer sentences than the others, so the practical result is he'll serve time for the single most serious crime he committed. If it goes to trial he's not even likely to face all those charges, the prosecutors will focus on the handful of most serious and easiest to prove charges and drop the others if only to avoid muddying the waters at trial.
CONSECUTIVE sentencing is theoretically possible, it's mandated for some serious crimes (not the case here) and can be imposed by the judge at his discretion given the gravity and circumstances of the crime. Spectacularly unlikely here, and probably overturned by a more sane appeals court if it was imposed.
AT WORST I suppose if the judge felt that the resulting concurrent sentence wasn't long enough he could tack on one of the sentences as a consecutive sentence at the end. So say the kid gets the maximum 3 years for 2nd degree burglary as the longest of his concurrent sentences but the judge decides that's too lenient so he makes the identity theft sentence to run consecutively to add another 18 months. Even this type of scenario doesn't seem very likely, it's just as likely the judge decides he's basically a good kid, a good candidate for rehabilitation and mitigates his sentence so he only serves time on one of the lesser charges.
It's amazing how they can turn a talented, although with obvious problems kid, into an outwright criminal.
I'm confused. Are you suggesting that "they" induced him into committing these crimes? Or do you have some other definition of criminal? (Hint: the definition is "someone who commits a crime") As far as I could tell he turned himself into a criminal without "their" help, and "they" simply caught him.
He is 18, for God's sake!!
Exactly: Far too old to infantilize by saying he's too immature to be responsible for his own actions.
That being said a 38 year sentence would be extreme and unjust. Fortunately, that's just hype as mentioned by others if he's found guilty he'll face concurrent sentencing resulting in a sentence equal to the single most serious crime, not even taking into account the possibility that that sentence will itself be mitigated to a lesser charge.
The price of oil isn't high because it's expensive to produce but because people want more of it than is readily available at the moment, and because of speculation by investors.
$50 is how much it costs them to produce a barrel of crude, what the oil industry calls "lifting cost". By comparison the average lifting cost of traditional crude oil pumped out of the ground is around $6.00 per barrel. (Lifting costs from 2006). To be fair you have to include the finding cost of oil too so let's call the total production cost average around $15/barrel.
As you can see $50/gallon is a very high COST for crude oil. It's almost too high for anyone to consider investing the serious money required to start producing at any real volume. At this point demand is so far above supply and appears likely to remain that way long enough that it might be worth the risk, but it is a HUGE risk. Imagine you throw the billions of dollars necessary to ramp up production using this process so that a decade or so from now you're producing oil on a meaningful scale. What happens if the economies of India & China falter during that time drying up demand. It's a given that your conventional competitors will have been spending the same decade desperately scrambling to bring traditional oil wells into production at a MUCH lower cost per barrel. Other businesses will likely have been exploring other alternatives sources of oil further increasing supply (The Orinoco tar sands? Shale Oil? Oil from coal?). Oil could drop to the $30-$40/barrel price it held steady at for the two decades prior to the current bubble.
You could as easily say Naziism itself was "simply a reform movement within the German polity". Positive Christianity was not simply a reform movement within the Lutheran church it was a reform movement within the Lutheran church promoted by the Nazi party. 'Positive Christianity" thought that orthodox christianity was too wimpy with it's focusing on Christ's death on the cross, forgiveness of sins and all that icky jewish stuff that comes before Matthew, and with an enlightened "Higher Criticism" rejection of Biblical literalism and authority it was free to remake Christianity in a Nazi image. The "German Christian" movement that believed in "Positive Christianity" founded the "German Evangelical Church", of course it endorsed the Nazi's - it was their creation. The alternative was the "Confessing Church". Note: don't get too confused by the term "Evangelical" the various names of groups on either side.. We're talking about Lutherans here. The formal name for the lutheran church in Germany has almost always included the word "Evangelical" (it's currently the Evangelical Church in Germany). That doesn't make either side "evangelical" in it's currently used sense. The German Christian movement with it's embrace of higher criticism, rejection of Biblical authority as well as most of the doctrines that evangelicals would define as essential to christianity certainly weren't "evangelical:" in it's current sense. Even the confessing church though would be found wanting. Certainly their "neo-orthodoxy" would be seen as preferable to the other option on offer but it would be hard to make the case that they were evangelical in our current sense either (though Bonhoeffer's "Cost of Discipleship" is widely read by evangelicals, and Barth is accorded a certain amount of respect as a theologian.)
The "German Faith Movement" on the other hand wasn't "within the Lutheran Church" at all, or any church for that matter. It was a distinct religion on it's own. Self-professedly pagan and a self-conscious rejection of christianity.
The Nazi party clearly wanted to move Germany away from orthodox christianity towards a triumphalist, aryan pseudo-christianity that rejected much of the Bible and many central beliefs of christianity. Given that there was no separation of church and state in Germany they were largely successful in manipulating church politics, installing Nazi's in key church positions. intimidating (killing or exiling) their (theologically) conservative opponents. The officially sanctioned "christianity" of the third Reich didn't retain much that was identifiably christian.
1) The Wehrmacht wasn't exactly in the ideological driver's seat of Naziism. If you're getting your insights into the Nazi's understanding of religion from the slogans of military units I think the slogans and symbolism of the SS would be more instructive about distinctively Nazi concepts of spirituality rather than merely German ones.
2) In any event The "Gott" of the Wehrmacht slogan as it was understood by Nazi's wasn't exactly what anyone would identify as christian. The National Reich Church, the German Faith Movement, the tent's of "Positive Christianity"... all those various Nazi religious innovations and attempts to influence German religious beliefs were either Pagan or at the very least Pagan/Christian syncretism. (or to be more accurate Pagan/Vedic Hindu/Christian syncretism). There wasn't much left of the Bible after the National Reich Church "purified" it of jewishness and the "corruptions" of the apostle Paul. Take a look at the program of the National Reich Church. I don't think anyone would consider the religion being espoused as "christian" by even the loosest definition. Just a few highlights: 11 (forbids teachers who promote christianity), 14 (forbids publication of the Bible), 14 (forbids importation of the Bible or christian literature), 15 (Stating that Mein Kampf is the supreme document) 18 & 30 (removing crosses from churches) 21 (rejects the doctrine of forgiveness of sins) 24 (abolishes confirmation and communion)
Sure the mass of Germany was certainly "Christian". Nazi attempts to undermine Christianity provoked significant opposition, and some of their only political defeats after taking power. National cultures don't turn on a dime, but the Nazi's were remarkably transparent about where they were attempting to steer it. I think his point was that most other cultures never had that fight. At least not internally, the Christians (most specifically the British) imposed their resolution of that conflict onto most of the rest of humanity.
Further making my point. As it turns out the (skeptical of govenrment) judge who initially ruled against the DOI was a Reagan appointee and the (trusting of government) Judge that now rules for them is a Clinton appointee. it's not surprising since that's exactly what one would expect given the ideological bent you would suppose given who appointed them.