Politics: A new beginning

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Hi sweetie,

The factories/OSHA I think help your point, or maybe I'm just tired. Though I woudn't mind seeing OSHA-stuff left largely up to the states unless there was a good reason for the feds to be involved.

The food is at least a federal issue if its imported. I'd have to check my old books to see the justification for the rest.

The EPA doesn't help you though, as pollution almost always involves interstate externalities. No way the feds should stay out of that, and no way the states should duke that one out. New Jersey would kill us all if it could.

In other words, while we might not all agree on what makes a compelling* reason for federal involvement/regulation in any particular area, I'd guess that almost all of us agree that someone has to at least be able to credibly assert that a compelling reason exists for federal regulation. What is the deal with OSHA anyway?

Hello

*or some other word that a lawyer would use when he doesn't know what standard(s) are actually required.

Why shouldn't the states duke it out? They could go thru court to determine what damages or compensatory payments should be made. Hell, if my neighbor dumps crap in my yard, I get to sue him and we work it out between ourselves -- why should the states be any different?

I think food travels between the states, and so it's an interstate commerce thing. Just a guess -- I'm no conlaw scholar. But I've heard that that "interstate commerce" thing is important. And, just a guess, checking things at the production site is likely more efficient than having to stop the trucks/trains/planes at the border (or the airport) to inspect the food -- thus having to have testing facilities set up at every road into a state. But whatthefuckever.

I'm having more wine and going to sleep.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Last things first, the GOP is refusing to let the federal (not state) government recognize gay marriage or civil unions between gays, even if it is recognized in the state in which they reside.

I think the Defense of Marriage Act does 2 things - it prevents one state from having to recognize the gay marriages of another state and it defines marriage for federal laws/entitlements as between one man and one woman. I don't believe that either is inconsistent with state's rights, which is what your complaint of hypocrisy was about. Just because the federal government doesn't want to give social security benefits to a gay spouse doesn't mean the state that has sanctioned the gay marriage has lost any rights. The federal government is not bound by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. That applies to the states only. The Full Faith and Credit Act, a federal law, does have implications on the federal government. But that is not a constitutional provision. That is a law that can be changed willy-nilly.

Originally posted by ltl/fb
The federal government recognizes common-law marriages, even though most states do not. But gay marriage, no. While you may be kinda sorta focused on state laws, there are a few federal laws (e.g., the Internal Revenue Code) that have provisions that relate to marriage (say, oh, whether or not you can use the "married filing jointly" tax rates that are quite favorable if one spouse earns considerably more than the other).

Well, it was you who was focused on state laws/rights, not me. I just responded to your cries of "hypocrisy."

I don't see your common law marriage analogy as apt. Your original post complained about the GOP being hypocrites because they claim to care about state's rights, and you believe that the Defense of Marriage Act somehow interferes with state's rights.

Originally posted by ltl/fb
First things last, what, people don't die because workplaces are unsafe? Since when? I realize that it has to do with preventing injuries etc. as well, but people die in unsafe factories (e.g., trapped inside when the place is burning down). People also die when food is unsafe, but that doesn't mean the GOP won't try to limit the FDA's (or the Dept. of Agriculture)enforcement efforts. People also die or are quite a bit harmed from poisons in their drinking water. Bet that really fucks up those unborn children. Fetuses are soooooo delicate. But let's roll back the regulations on that one, right?

Death is the intended consequence of an abortion and that makes it much different from regulating workplace safety, which only reduce the likelihood of death or injury. That is plainly different. Also, some workplace safety regulations, say the ergonomic requirements to prevent carpal tunnel, are trivial. Abortion is never trivial. Someone always dies.*

If the government doesn't regulate workplace safety, some people may or may not die as the result. Some workers may or may not get injured as the result. And some workplace safety regulations have never even been shown to prevent either death or injury in the workplace. When a woman has an abortion, the fetus always dies.*

Also, the unsafe factory may or may not be the cause of the death. It could be human error. An abortion is always the cause of the death.* Death is the intended consequence of the abortion. And that makes it different from regulating to decrease the likelihood of injury and death in the workplace.

Same can be said about your FDA regulation analogy and other analogies. It is not the same to regulate a procedure in which death is the intended consequence and to regulate the workplace/food safety to simply decrease the likelihood of injury/death occuring.

*Unless it is one of the rare cases in which the fetus lives and my god, what a fucking nightmare that is. You now have this severly maimed/harmed person who gets the pleasure of living like that because of a botched abortion. My understanding is if the abortion is botched and the baby's head is out of the womb, you can no longer kill it or it is murder. But I could be wrong.

Originally posted by ltl/fb
And, back to the abortion thing, apparently the FDA is considering letting the morning-after pill go OTC. Medical groups are for it, religious/political groups are against it. Article (from NYT via Yahoo!) http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?<a ...thecounter</a>

The GOP is not against it as far as I know. Do you know otherwise? And if not, why did you say "religious/political groups are against it"?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Why shouldn't the states duke it out? They could go thru court to determine what damages or compensatory payments should be made. Hell, if my neighbor dumps crap in my yard, I get to sue him and we work it out between ourselves -- why should the states be any different?

Speaking of the states duking it out, I thought, from an historical perspective, this was an interesting recent USSC case:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...&invol=129ORIG

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Nice line. Let's see where this goes first. There is usually a great rush to criticize on this board followed by a hat eating party down the line. We need to give this time to play out. I just can't see a scenario where this plays out badly. We either (a) give in for some agreement on debt relief, in which case, we've won, (b) given in for no agreement on debt relief, in which case we look like we are capitulating, but we spin it as an opportunity to kiss and make up and the French feel like BSDs, or (c) we don't given in and we are stuck right where we are today, no worse off.

I think that both (b) and (c) make us worse off. (b) may make us worse off just in terms of credibility (your earlier point) -- but (c) makes us much worse off.

If we are still "stuck right where we are today" in Iraq 3 months or six months down the road [i.e. without debt relief, without lots more reconstruction aid, and without the sort of international contributions to an international peace-keeping and reconstruction force (led by the U.S. under U.N. auspices) that we are now actively seeking] -- I think that the U.S. would be significantly worse off, as would Iraq, and as would your pal's reelection chances (BTW).

I think that this is real possibility -- which is why I oppose the policy.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I was hoping to come back and see you and your cohorts admitting that the "evidence" of WMD was trumped-up, that the suggestion that the war would be cheap and that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction was humiliatingly false, and that your early claims of a "cakewalk" had proven about as intelligent as the celebrations of Patriots' fans when they scored the first field goal in the Superbowl against the Bears.

Jesus Christ Sidd, don't get that started again, Bilmore might have a stroke!

I'm though beating my head against that particular wall -- before you know it -- I'll be agreeing with the Bushies that no one ever made those last two suggestions (but if anyone believed them, they were idiots and money shouldn't matter anyway), and that the whole WMD issue is just a distraction from the great democracy-building task we undertook.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
And, Hank, if you go Hunter Thompson you will never get off ignore (which, obviously, I override with some regularity and which you likely don't care about anyway).

I don't want to be Hunter Thompson. Ty was being mean and called me a bad HT rip-off because I had forgotten that he had already "answered" something I wrote, like he never forgets!!!! Confidential- he drinks when he posts sometime. Anyway, I wanted to pretend that it didn't bother me it did tho Fringe, it really did so i posted that. now you tell me I'm on ignore and that bothers me, of course I care. No one wants to be ignored.

Fringey it hurts bad,
Not being read makes me not
Trees fall silently?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't want to be Hunter Thompson. Ty was being mean and called me a bad HT rip-off because I had forgotten that he had already "answered" something I wrote, like he never forgets!!!! Confidential- he drinks when he posts sometime. Anyway, I wanted to pretend that it didn't bother me it did tho Fringe, it really did so i posted that. now you tell me I'm on ignore and that bothers me, of course I care. No one wants to be ignored.

Fringey it hurts bad,
Not being read makes me not
Trees fall silently?

The way I prefer to think of it, I post sometimes when I drink.

Nice haiku.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Turns out Strom Thurmond was working to end racial divisions a whole lot earlier than anyone suspected. A 78-year-old woman of mixed-race descent says Strom was her father, and acknowledged her and paid support starting in 1941.

[bilmore]

"I think we are all disgusted by the way George W. Bush's administration has allowed honesty and candor to seep into the genteel world of international affairs.

Until the Bush team came to power, foreign relations were conducted with a certain gentlemanly decorum. The first Bush administration urged regime change in Iraq, without sullying itself with the Iraqi peasants actually trying to do it. The Clinton administration pretended to fight terrorism without committing the sin of unilateralism by trying very hard.

The United Nations passed resolution after resolution condemning the government of Iraq, without committing the faux pas of actually enforcing them. The leaders of France and Germany announced their abhorrence of Saddam's regime, and expressed this abhorrence by doing as much business with Saddam as possible."

(More and worth reading.)

[bilmore]

A while ago, I was asked to post some of the Iraq blogs I was reading.

Here they are:

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/

http://www.messopotamian.blogspot.com/

http://www.dear_raed.blogspot.com/

http://www.hammorabi.blogspot.com/

http://www.nabilsblog.blogspot.com/

http://baghdadee.ipbhost.com/

http://www.lettersfrombaghdad.blogspot.com/

http://www.bootsonground.blogspot.com/

http://www.chromedomezone.blogspot.com/

http://www.chiefwiggles.blog-city.com/

http://www.turningtables.blogspot.com/

http://bear.typepad.com/magic_in_the_baghdad_cafe/

http://www.whosyourbaghdaddy.blog-city.com/

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Countering Howard Dean's endorsement by Al Gore, John Edwards that he has been endorsed by the former lieutenant governor of Hawaii. More details as they come in.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Countering Howard Dean's endorsement by Al Gore, John Edwards that he has been endorsed by the former lieutenant governor of Hawaii. More details as they come in.

Speaking of Dean, there is an interesting article on his foreign policy views right now at washingtonpost.com.

I'm still a bit mixed on this stuff. On the one hand, I'm in favor of invading Iraq if its done right. On the other, I'd just as soon we not if its not. So him not doing it just about equals Rumsfeld not doing it right for me.

Which leaves North Korea. No need to repeat my "withdraw the army and tell them they are burnt nuclear toast if they touch anyone in any significant way", right? Dean says he'd offer them a package in exchange for them certifiably going non-nuclear. Ya know, if he'd add my "withdraw the army and tell them they are burnt nuclear toast if they touch anyone in any significant way" to his policy, I'd probably forgive him for the appeasement aspects of his package. But you can't threaten to nuke someone who you are trying to get to give up nukes, right? Could someone check with his people and have them PM me here so I can be sure he'd not a Chamberlain?

He also said he'd have elections almost instantly in Iraq. All I'm saying is, fuck, that is exactly what I wanted to hear on that topic.

Haven't really considered the Israeli-Pali implications of his views yet, except that I do appreciate his appreciation of Bush's don't-deal-with-Arafat policy, which he impliedly would continue.

All in all, sounds like someone is telling him what the Hellos of the world want to hear. Have him PM me. I promise it'll be just between me and him.

Hello

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Why shouldn't the states duke it out? They could go thru court to determine what damages or compensatory payments should be made. Hell, if my neighbor dumps crap in my yard, I get to sue him and we work it out between ourselves -- why should the states be any different?

Just in case you ain't kidding, which court again? I like the idea of working things out between parties though. Let me ask you, what would you do if DirectTV was dumping signals in a particular bandwidth through your windows? (I told the rest of you punks not to read this)!

Originally posted by ltl/fb

I think food travels between the states, and so it's an interstate commerce thing. Just a guess -- I'm no conlaw scholar. But I've heard that that "interstate commerce" thing is important. And, just a guess, checking things at the production site is likely more efficient than having to stop the trucks/trains/planes at the border (or the airport) to inspect the food -- thus having to have testing facilities set up at every road into a state. But whatthefuckever.

That interstate commerce thing is way overblown. I remember there was a whole string of cases where the Sup. Court started allowing it to get abused. Can't remember if it was the New Deal or earlier though, it was a long time ago.

Again though, I like the efficiency arguments of centralized inspections for interstate food. That seems like a compelling reason for the FDA to me. I still can't figure out OSHA though.

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I'm having more wine and going to sleep.

Yeah, me too.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
"I think we are all disgusted by the way George W. Bush's administration has allowed honesty and candor to seep into the genteel world of international affairs.

Until the Bush team came to power, foreign relations were conducted with a certain gentlemanly decorum. The first Bush administration urged regime change in Iraq, without sullying itself with the Iraqi peasants actually trying to do it. The Clinton administration pretended to fight terrorism without committing the sin of unilateralism by trying very hard.

The United Nations passed resolution after resolution condemning the government of Iraq, without committing the faux pas of actually enforcing them. The leaders of France and Germany announced their abhorrence of Saddam's regime, and expressed this abhorrence by doing as much business with Saddam as possible."

(More and worth reading.)

That's an entertaining piece - and an interesting view of the undiplomatic nature of the Administration's diplomacy. Too honest and forthright for their own good, eh? Well, some people may consider that admirable. Even Brooks says it isn't wise.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Which leaves North Korea. ......... Dean says he'd offer them a package in exchange for them certifiably going non-nuclear.

accord. let's use the Clinton strategy...should we send Carter or clinton to cut the deal?

Bush's don't-deal-with-Arafat policy, which he implied[ly] would continue.

you think he's foreshadowing his concession speech?

All in all, sounds like someone is telling him what the Hellos of the world want to hear. Have him PM me. I promise it'll be just between me and him.

Hello

The most interesting theory that I've heard so far - which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved - is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now, who knows what the real situation is?

sorry I can't help quote this it's like an OCD or something