The negation of "powers that be" is "powers that bon't", heebie.
I bet his son killed him. Killed him with disappointment!
Staten Island: vote for the waterfall!
There were Powers that bon't. They had a baby, who grew up to be a Libertarian.
Is this the adorable post we were promised ? I like it !
heebs, the last link seems to be not quite correct.
It requires a bit of scrolling, but then it self-corrects.
What's the big deal about drunk driving? In God's country (Montana) you can drive along sipping a beer at a reasonable and proper speed (no speed limit) with a case of beer beside you riding shotgun. Liquor stores have driveup windows in case you get too drunk to walk.
That's freedom. The freedom patriots died for.
Or could, I should say. Hollywood nannystate queers have taken over our state, and our way of life is relentlesslybeing destroyed, one piece at a time.
I'm surprised that #1 did not go further to correct your conjugation of the verb "to up and die". it is well known that the "die" gets conjugated, but the "up" does not.
I up and die
You up and die
He/she/it up and dies
etc.
7: Montana now has speed limits, sadly.
Montana is nowhere near God's Country.
God being that indicted old guy who ran the Adelphia corporation, I think.
6: The other posters don't make us do all the work, you know.
8: Actually, the correct form there would be "who ups and die yesterday".
11: I know. I was called in to whip you pansies into shape.
Who ups and dies yesterday.
Sunday, actually.
I like ben't, which has a pleasant, rich history in dialect.
I'm surprised that #1 did not go further to correct your conjugation of the verb "to up and die". it is well known that the "die" gets conjugated, but the "up" does not.
Mais non.
(a) 1831 S. LOVER Leg. 82 The bishop ups and he tells him that he must mend his manners. 1865 DICKENS Mut. Fr. IV. xiii, Then we both of us ups and says, that minute, 'Prove so!' 1867- in general dialect use (Eng. Dial. Dict.). 1879 R. BROWNING Ned Bratts 125 She ups with such a face, Heart sunk inside me: 'Well, pad on my prate-apace!'
(b) 1883 STEVENSON Treas. Isl. xxix, And you have the Davy Jones's insolence to up and stand for cap'n over me! 1884 'MARK TWAIN' Huck. Finn xxv, All of a sudden the doctor ups and turns on them. He says: [etc.]. 1898 'H. S. MERRIMAN' Roden's Corner xxvii, A gesture that served..to..invite the Frenchman to up and smite him. 1935 E. E. CUMMINGS Let. 31 Jan. (1969) 135 And he ups and hands Am [Eimi] such a boost as would knock Karl Marx's whiskers out of Benjamin G. Woozeythought's cabinet d'aisance. 1958 'A. GILBERT' Death against Clock 81 So you upped and fled. 1961 O. NASH Coll. Verse 33 One of these days not too remote I'll probably up and cut your throat. 1973 Black World Jan. 62/1 It did no good. I upped and died. 1979 J. RATHBONE Joseph I. i. 20 As soon as we could we upped and fled.
Well, pad on my prate-apace!
I have no idea what that means, but I'm going to say it all the time.
Gob
i first read 'bon't as don't and was to comment like how come be becomes don't
then i got it was like that, a joke on incorrect grammar usage, that, subtle like
but 13 again confuses me coz who is imo singular and requires s at all times, though i often forget
Time was, the wimpy Unfoggetariat was conflicted about mocking Republicans merely for being homely or disabled. The new management is taking this blog in an auspicious direction. When it comes to Republicans, de mortuis nil nisi malum.
Hey, this is a great chance to really mess with read's understanding of the English language. What should we tell her?
Heebie, if you're going to follow NY politics, do we New Yorkers have to reciprocate by following Texas's?
21: Amen brother.
Republicans, irrumpe te!
"Well, carry on, you chatterbox."
E.E. Cummings is not a valid source for grammar.
Or, possibly, "Well, go on your way, you chatterbox."
E.E. Cummings is not a valid source for grammar.
Pish posh! Anyhow, it's from a letter.
RFTS, the OED may err occasionally, but we expect better from you. Cummings spent his whole life fucking with people, including grammatically.
Is Dr. Bronner in the OED? Probably. But the better class of person ignores those cites.
It's a shame there wasn't a Dominion or two in that race.
do we New Yorkers have to reciprocate by following Texas's?
If you don't, you'll miss some unintentionally hilarious ads.
It is well known I have no sympathy for Republicans, but if I did it would be for Poppy Bush.
Here is the son of a powerful man who tried his best but just could not be a big enough prick to get two terms as a Republican President.
In addition he is married to Babs and then his least capable ne'er do well son becomes President. Twice. And blows it. Publicly. On the world stage.
Sometimes I wonder if Poppy had just a tiny part of his mind wishing that parachute didn't open. Probably not, because it was a tandem jump and he wouldn't want another person killed on his behalf. Unlike the real Republicans.
Still, I think karma has at least a little juice left and pissed it on Poppy.
I like ben't, which has a pleasant, rich history … laydeez.
It would be interesting to put together a "Truth or Fiction" page on Texas politics. "Did this really happen?"
I really miss Molly Ivins.
Any minute now, Ralph Nader is going to start busting dope rhymes.
In an interview with the Rocky Mountain News, Nader lambasted Obama for not discussing poverty enough. "What's keeping him from doing that?" Nader asked. "Is it because he wants to talk white?"
29: Cummings spent his whole life fucking with people, including grammatically.
Why do you have to bring family into it? Yes, I know, incest, but couldn't that stay private?
Neil Bush is less capable than Dubya.
Grandpappy Bush was a Nazi collaborator and had property confiscated for that reason. So was Joe Kennedy, though it didn't reach the courts. The big time players do what they feel like and almost always get away with it. Tom and Daisy always win.
By contrast, Senator Lundeen of Minnesota was a populist Nazi collaborator, and in 1940 he became the first Minnesota Senator to die in a mysterious plane crash.
I was going to say, GHW Bush's most positive quality was his willingness to say no to Israel, and he was defeated partly for that reason. George Will shanked him, along with others.
39: The best thing about Poppy's ME legacy is that, dollars to doughnuts, it bought W a lot of Arab votes. (OTOH, this might be my Pauline Kael moment.) Suckers!
Or could, I should say. Hollywood nannystate queers have taken over our state, and our way of life tacky furniture is relentlessly being destroyed, one piece at a time.
36: when you take account of his brave stance on NBA issues and his mad ballin skillz , Nader is definitely the candidate who is keepin it real for the 'hood in 2008!
41: As I mentioned, my sister gets interior-decorating advice from a gay wheat rancher from North Dakota.
32: A rare pwning for apo, but worth it to make sure everyone gets to see it. Squirm, you lesser states.
As I mentioned, my sister gets interior-decorating advice from a gay wheat rancher from North Dakota.
We're here, we're queer, we're commoditized.
#43. Is he a jolly rancher?
I wonder about Nader. Is he a just bought and paid for Republican ankle biter or is he so bloodless and robotic that he really believes his own brand of bullshit? Not that either of those are mutually exclusive, of course.
||
what happens when you load up the court with liberals
|>
I moved to the dementia theory of Nader a few years ago.
A lot of perennial candidates are actually smart guys who just have unrealistic or magical ideas of politics.
I tried hard to start a conversation about 47 in the other thread, but no one took me up on it. I can't decide how I feel about the ruling. Intellectually I think I have to agree with it, but it's not easy.
46, 48: As it happens, the Washington Post made an effort to answer that one today. If he wasn't crazy in 2000, that election apparently drove him crazy.
As far as unrealistic or magical ideas goes, I'd nominate this:
Brock: Edge cases are always difficult. Chasing them always makes bad law, afaics.
47: I'm generally anti-death penalty, but it does weird me out that we're drawing the line there.
Whoops. To finish my thought in 50:
It wasn't his responsibility, he says, to persuade people to vote for Gore. If voters were attracted by his positions and issues, he says, then Democrats were free to take the same positions. Bottom line? "The Democrats couldn't beat a bumbling governor from Texas," Nader mocks.
50: I'd say your nomination is more existential than unrealistic or magical.
52: the line that's been drawn is life for life. Which is sensible enough.
49: Really? I'm anti-death penalty as a general rule, as my liberal credentials demand. But, frankly, I consider child rape a more serious offense than murder. If the death penalty is constitutionally permissible for murder, it should be permissible for child rape, too.
Pwned by heebie, I see. Who, as always, is right.
45: Actually he's a friend who does it for free. He's a very nice, educated guy who would fit in in the finest metrosexual circles. As I understand, he just happened to inherit the successful wheat ranch he grew up on, and he knows how to run it based on childhood experience.
Some of the few surviving farmers are quite prosperous.
I consider child rape a more serious offense than murder
Why?
I should have said, 55 is a statement of policy (and a statement coming from someone generally opposed to the death penalty). As a matter of 8th Amendment jurisprudence, I think this is completely nuts.
56: This would make a great question for a presidential debate, and it causes me to mourn once again the loss of Tim Russert.
I'm not in favor of raping children unless they really deserve it, but restricting the death penalty to cases that involve death seems reasonable.
59: Because the injury to the victim will continue for decades. At least once you murder someone, that's that.
This would make an adorable post.
At least once you murder someone with no friends or family, that's that.
I do have a question on pacing of posts. I looked up a few old weeks, and there's usually 35-45 posts in a week. So they were averaging 6-7 a day, possibly more if weekends are slower. We've been like 3-4 a day recently.
So have we slowed down? Should I just throw out all the stupid ideas that are bouncing around in my head? I don't want to dominate.
At least once you murder someone with no friends or family, that's that.
The argument for abortion!
59: presumably this same logic applies to raping an adult? Or to, say, violently mugging someone, who might be badly traumatized by the experience.
But, frankly, I consider child rape a more serious offense than murder.
I have to admit that I feel kind of the same way (unless the kid's really hot, obviously), and was also a little surprised at the line being drawn.
60: "Senator, if you had raped a child, would you be in favor of the death penalty for yourself?"
"Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas allow executions in such cases if the defendant had previously been convicted of raping a child. "
Does that previously mean it has to be a repeat conviction, or just previous to sentencing?
69: I was thinking: "Senator, if Reverend Wright raped a child, would you favor the death penalty ?"
It's not feminine to dominate, Heebie. Unless a guy pays you to.
I think that we'll just leave you to your own devices and complain if you do the wrong thing.
Today's case is somewhat of an example of the way that legal reasoning is sort of crazy. Whatever justification of the death penalty they're using makes this ruling make sense. It might even be a plausible justification. But in practice it seems to be minimizing child rape.
59: Because the injury to the victim will continue for decades. At least once you murder someone, that's that.
Di, 99.99% of the time I have tremendous respect for your opinions and have learned a great deal from reading your thoughts on Unfogged, so it somewhat pains me to sound antagonistic but I think this overlooks that murders don't happen in a vacuum. Murders create insecurity and trauma and loss and fallout for pretty much everyone left behind. I think it's reasonable for the justice system to take into account that victims of a non-fatal offense have a lifetime to work through the trauma whereas murder victims are by definition denied that chance. I'm not trying to make the offense or trauma of child rape seem mild by saying that, and I will admit that a big part of my horrified reaction to Louisiana passing such a law in the first place is that I'm pretty much opposed to the death penalty in all cases, murder or otherwise.
70: I'm pretty sure those states only allowed the death penalty for repeat offenders.
74: Texas, Oklahoma, and South Carolina? Doubt it.
But in practice it seems to be minimizing child rape
Look John, raping children is fun and yes we're all tempted from time to time, but in a civilized society we have to come to terms with the fact that minimzing child rape is actually a good thing.
64, 73: Point taken. Can we agree that they are equally vile offenses?
Now, what if you raped a simulated child?
further to 78: ... because I think child rape probably also creates insecurity and trauma and loss and fallout for pretty much everyone close to the victim.
P.S. the flaw in the legal reasoning of this ruling is that it preserves the fiction that the death penalty can be applied justly or fairly.
Comity?
71: I was thinking: "Senator, if Reverend Wright raped a child, would you favor the death penalty ?"
Pretty close to mine which was: "Senator, if Reverend Wright raped one of your children, would you favor the death penalty?"*
*And maybe he has. Would it be irresponsible to speculate? it would be irresponsible not to.
82: Comity!
And with that, I am leaving before I get offended by the jokesters...
What, raping children's not funny anymore?
Ooh ! Ooh ! I've got another good one: "Senator, does Reverend Wright like raping children more than you do ?"
What, raping children's not funny anymore?
Everything should be optimized, Brock, pretty much by definition. Minimizing and maximizing are fossilized second-millenium thinking.
||
Talking Points Memo has two must-reads today.
First, someone points out that Rove's "Obama at the country club" angle was a way of planting the black man / white woman meme. (My angle: Obama at the country club is O.J. playing golf while he looks for the real killers.)
Second, it turns out that the Hillary money people are not happy at all. Why not? Because Obama isn't routing enough money Hillary's way> (My question: WTF good are Hillary's money people to Obama, if the main thing they're going to do is ask him for money? It's like going into the bank for a loan and having the banker ask you for a loan.)
Re Obama at the country club: Rove forgot that the other black man at an American country club, besides O.J., is Tiger Woods, and everyone loves Tiger and his lovely Swedish wife.
|>
Senator Obama, have you stopped raping Reverend Wright's children?
"Senator, if someone raped *your* child, how many liberal supreme court justices would you kill with your bare hands?"
90: Senator Obama, as a child of one of Reverend Wright's rapings, do you think your mother should have aborted you?
I'm not sure that Alan Page could handle all 9 of them. After awhile you just get tired.
I suspect that Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts would get into a pod and then use the other justices as weapons, encimbering Page, weighing him down, and tiring him out until the four of them could combine to take down Page.
If raping children isn't funny, only un-funny people will rape children.
Thinking you're funny, and acting accordingly, when you aren't: grounds for execution?
I say yes.
Thinking you're funny, and acting accordingly, when you aren't: grounds for execution?
I say yes.
So have we slowed down?
My memory is that the site slows down in the summer, but I don't know if that's accurate or what defines "summer".
99: summer is when courage enters its blue period.
89: one of those obama-hillary-money stories implies that the hillary money people are going to demand policy concessions from obama before they play with him, which strikes me as absurd. (I mean: of course they would make that demand, that's not absurd; what's absurd is the idea that obama should do what they want, since, after all, he, not hillary, was nominated, so becoming an obama-hillary hybrid after the fact doesn't seem to make sense.)
I don't know if anyone here has linked to It's Raining McCain yet, but if so, it's ok because it is so bizarrely bad it deserves to be linked to multiple times.
it is so bizarrely bad
"One clue to the video's likely origin comes from Mario Ruiz, the vice president of media relations for both the Huffington Post and its partner site 236.com. A joint collaboration between the Huffington Post and IAC -- Barry Diller's internet company -- 23/6 video is 'a comedy news site,' said Ruiz. And it's where, he says, the HuffPo got the video in the first place. "
I am categorically opposed to the death penalty, so I don't want to see its expansion allowed at all. I don't really care whether that forms a coherent 8th amendment jurisprudence.
Btw, you people might want to note that the child rapist in the relevant case supposedly has an IQ of like 70 or something.
And what about all of those people here who talked about leaving their children alone the other day? Are they sure that Reverend Wright did not sneak in and rape your children? How many potential victims? Can we even begin to assess the psychological damage?
96-98: Ben's really sensitive on the subject of child rape, people. It's a triggering topic for him.
As I mentioned, my sister gets interior-decorating advice from a gay wheat rancher from North Dakota.
I know I should have paid more attention in biology. Could someone remind me how one determines if wheat is gay? Does the pollen land selectively? Is it the show tunes? I might be traveling through Kansas and I may need to know this.
IQ of like 70
70 Celsius or 70 American?
As a matter of 8th Amendment jurisprudence, I think this is completely nuts.
This is because you think the 8th Amendment doesn't impose a proportionality requirement between crime and sentence?
102: "We're money people, and we play hardball. If you don't deal with us on the policy issues, we won't let you give us the money we're asking you for. We've got you cornered, Obama!"
108:
b,
I kinda hinted about this yesterday. I'm newly returned so I dunno much but it seemed to me that talking about certain subjects might be daring and fun but somebody could get hurt too.
But if it's cool then it's cool. As I say, what do I know?
how one determines if wheat is gay
Leather pants.
As a fellow rapist, B might be a good partner for Tripp. She rapes her stand mixer, she rapes her koi, she rapes her artisanal bras.
110 reminds me that the other day PK declared that he finds celsius easier to "get" than fahrenheit. Which we owe to Canadia, obviously, so I gotta give 'em credit.
114: Assless leather pants, thank you.
sensible kid, that PK.
119: chaps?
Kidding aside, I can see the point that improper usage of a word dilutes its meaning to the point where it may become meaningless.
Obviously one of Carlin's points was exactly this about the "f" word and others. He pointed out that it is we who give that word power.
I agree with this, but I also think we need powerful words, powerful bad words, for powerful bad things. Thus I think the argument is not that we should dilute those words. Rather we should reserve them for when they are truly needed.
A long time ago my HS football coach made us all cuss out loud on the count of three to prove we could do it and then told us not to do it again. That points has stuck with me.
And b and B, I think I may have said 'b' when I meant 'B' or vice versa because I didn't see the distinction. I'll try to keep that straight.
"We're money people, and we play hardball. If you don't deal with us on the policy issues, we won't let you give us the money we're asking you for. We've got you cornered, Obama!"
It is pretty atrocious. And I really am amazed that several people seem to believe that Obama should get Clinton's debt paid off before they contribute to his campaign (among the comment thread at TPM, as well as in the news story itself). Towards what end? Just to put more money into Clinton's pocket? Why should she get paid back for what was essentially a giant donation to a failing cause? Should Obama supporters also raise enough money to pay off all the $130 million that was given to the failed Clinton primary campaign? How about covering everyone who donated to the failed Edwards campaign, too?
Does anyone know why candidates are allowed to make these "loans" to their campaigns, when everyone knows they're either going to end up paid off if the campaign is successful and raises loads or as illegal contributions should the campaign fail.
Does anyone know why candidates are allowed to make these "loans" to their campaigns
Mostly the First Amendment (as interpreted in Buckley v. Valeo, anyway), I think.
123: If that's the rationale, then does that extend to allowing candidates to make unlimited donations to their own campaign, or does it only allow extremely large loans with favorable terms that may never get paid off?
If the former, why are people so insistent on seeing the Clintons' loans to the campaign as true loans instead of as the political donations that they really are? Why should the candidates be financially protected from their failures when their supporters aren't?
123: If that's the rationale, then does that extend to allowing candidates to make unlimited donations to their own campaign
I think that's the deal, yeah.
If the former, why are people so insistent on seeing the Clintons' loans to the campaign as true loans instead of as the political donations that they really are?
As far as I understand it, the loans they're concerned about are not the ones she made; those are not expected to be repaid in any case.
the loans they're concerned about are not the ones she made; those are not expected to be repaid in any case.
But all the other debt can be carried over to her Senate campaign, where it will certainly be paid off, so then why does Clinton need any further donations at all?
I guess, if this were truly a good-faith agreement to cover the small vendors that need to get paid, wouldn't people set up a temporary legal entity of a fund that will only cover the debt to small firms (i.e., not Clinton and not Penn), and then produce a transparent tracker of how much debt there is to the dollar and how much has been raised by this independent fund? I'd probably be willing to throw in a few bucks in that case, since I'd just like to know that none of my money would go toward Penn or Clinton for gross fiscal mismanagement during the campaign.
Isn't that total debt to small outside vendors only something like $5 million anyway?
126: It's a payoff. I'm not sure why it bothers you.
Regarding the death penalty question: I should think there's an obvious argument against the death penalty when the victim is not killed. Doesn't that create a perverse incentive for those who commit the crime to go ahead & kill the victim?
128: that incentive already exists, what with the lack of tale-telling the dead are known for.
Rah, it's not that there's nothing to that argument, but how does it differ from, "I should think there's an obvious argument against the death penalty when the only one person is killed. Doesn't that create a perverse incentive for those who commit the crime to go ahead & kill another?"
Surely more American children will be raped as a result of this decision (by which I mean Buckley v. Valeo).
I'm not sure why it bothers you.
Because first the Clinton campaign accrued debt at a rate inversely proportional to her chances of winning the nomination and is now looking to the winner (and his supporters) to retire it? Hell, that pisses me off. Politics may make this necessary, but it doesn't make it any less grating.
132: and, indeed, incurred the debt tearing him down via unfair and scurrilous attacks. To now ask his supporters to pay for that is, indeed, grating.
132: Thank you!
Has there actually been any precedent for a payoff to the losing candidate comparable to this? I.e., some winning candidate cutting a check to their main primary opponent for $10 million? Because, if not, it seems like people are being pretty outlandish to expect such a thing and it seems like a terrible precedent to even contemplate setting.
I'm hopeful that this line of thinking will get shut down fairly quickly, but it still amazes me when people bring it up as a reason to not donate money to Obama, the DNC, the DSCC, or any of the other groups that are actually in a position to take back the levers of power and create actual policy change.
128: this very argument was, in fact, made by the Supreme Court in the today's decision. (Which of course you'd have known if you'd read the opinion.) It seems to me a fairly silly argument (both for the reason given in 130 and because I doubt rational incentive effects are very strong here).
129: True enough--but that's exactly the consideration that concerns me. Wanting to avoid being testified against by a victim in a death penalty case could affect the actions of a criminal who might have no desire to kill, or who might be sick enough not to think of the crime itself as a crime.
I should confess that the entire argument rests on the presumption that the death penalty has a deterrent effect in the first place, which frankly I've never bought--I expect most criminals don't think they'll get caught. People who don't believe "deterrence" has any real effect tend to oppose the death penalty across the board, as I do.
Now I think I'll go back & read the campaign finance comments, which seem oddly comforting by comparison.
Gahhh. The bottomless Hillary hatred here. This is pretty standard practice and is the equivalent of a unity rally among the big Democratic donors and fundraisers, which clears the books of leftover obligations incurred during the primary. Once they soothe each other's pain they will all get to work, Hillary and Obama fundraisers both, on raising money for the general. The people getting paid off for Hillary's campaign debts are in many cases the *very same people* who will be contributing to Obama's general election campaign.
None of the money is coming from Obama's current campaign coffers. This has nothing to do with small donor contributions of the type over the net either.
OK, now everybody start talking about how Hillary and Obama will campaign together on Friday. In Unity, New Hampshire!
This is pretty standard practice
Not at this scale.
Has there actually been any precedent for a payoff to the losing candidate comparable to this?
It's standard practice! It happens all the time!
didn't see 138.
It's a bigger scale this time because this was the most expensive political primary in all human history. But Obama is also raising more money than any Prez candidate ever, so this will not be a big issue for him -- $11 million is going to look very small by the time this is over...Obama has raised something like $300 million just so far, and that's before his fundraising really takes off in August/Sept/Oct.
What does hurt is how much of it will end up going to Mark Penn...but at least he's out of Dem politics now.
What does hurt is how much of it will end up going to Mark Penn
Well, right. Nobody's saying it shouldn't be done, or even that it's Hillary's fault, particularly. Just that it grates a little bit, given the recent tenor of the campaign.
To counter Di's theory, I would think the argument would go like this: At least one can recover from a rape.
I'll take the rapist for $500, Alex
As an argument against the Clinton->Obama transfer, I would think the donors who gave to Obama would like to be able to specify to which candidate they are actually giving. Then again, I suppose they legally waived that right when they contributed to his general fund. But I'd still be pissed to find out my Obama donation had been used to pay Clinton's debt.
I'd still be pissed to find out my Obama donation had been used to pay Clinton's debt.
No, F...none of the Hillary money is coming out of previous Obama donations or indeed any money the Obama campaign has now. This is the big bundlers who are affiliated with Obama being given permission to call their mailing lists of rich donors and ask for money to retire Hillary's debts.
Well, in that case, what's the fuss? In fact, why do the bundlers need permission to do so?
Has there actually been any precedent for a payoff to the losing candidate comparable to this?....Because, if not, it seems like people are being pretty outlandish to expect such a thing and it seems like a terrible precedent to even contemplate setting.
Think of it as one campaign acquiring the assets (goodwill, donor lists, personnel, etc.) of another and assuming some of the second campaign's debts to do so. That doesn't seem so outlandish to me.
As long as Rocklands gets all their bills paid, I'll be happy.
140: PGD, there are lots of good reasons to hate Hillary. I pretty much controlled myself during the primary season, but I don't need to any more.
Getting Lanny Davis, and Mark Penn, and Terry McAulliffe, and Mr. Matalin out of Democratic politics forever will a good thing, and let's pray that it really is forever. But if we can also stiff those assholes for a few million, that's an even better thing.
Lanny Davis has already gone over to Fox News to take on the Dick Morris / George Stephanopolous fake Democrat role. The others will either do that, or else they'll get jobs with foreign dictators who boil political oponents in oil, etc. None of them will miss the ten or twenty million we stiff them for. That's chickenfeed, just a purely symbolic gesture. But symbolism is important in politics.
OK, this kind of payoff is common. What about refusing to make such a payoff, and telling the shits to go sit on their thimbs? Is their any precedent for that? I ask merely for information.
Following on 135, Kennedy's other extremely dubious claim about behavioral incentives is that children might be less willing to report rapes if the death penalty is an option and the rapist is someone they know (as most are).
Really? So the 10 year old will reason through this--"I'd report the rape if it only meant Uncle Dan will go to jail for life, but not if he's going to get the chair?"
I'd feel better about supporting the decision if so much of the majority's reasoning didn't strike me as idiotic.
Well, in that case, what's the fuss? In fact, why do the bundlers need permission to do so?
They don't, and there hasn't been a huge amount of fuss about the Obama bundlers making those calls. What has caused the fuss is that, when the Clinton fundraisers and bundlers were called, they started stamping their feet that the debts weren't being paid off fast enough and that Obama isn't working the phones hard enough. Several have threatened to not support Obama at all until other people pony up to cover the Clinton debts to Penn et al.
What a bunch of shits. Just like everyone else connected with Clinton.
If he dumped his odious wife and was put on a short leash, Carville would actually be OK, but I worry about his pillow talk going directly to Cheney, the evilest man in the universe.
Think of it as one campaign acquiring the assets (goodwill, donor lists, personnel, etc.) of another and assuming some of the second campaign's debts to do so.
But in the business analogy, that doesn't happen when the second business goes bankrupt because it would produce too much moral hazard. Instead the company's assets are just turned over to the debtholders with no ceremony, and all the money is lost.
If this sets a precedent to pay off campaign debts in the several millions, future campaigns with less support that are willing to spend recklessly would be rewarded by effectively pulling more funds out of thin air, since they'll never have to pay back that debt themselves. This seems like an honor system that only worked so long as the losers didn't abuse it and keep spending money after they got in the hole.
I think that it's relevant that a lot (most? all?) of the debt was run up during a hopeless bitter-end campaign which did nothing but Obama with Republican talking points.
It just seemed incredibly shitty for those nasty cheating losers to speak stiffly to Obama.
149: Think also in terms of testifying for the prosecution.
155: this about it in what sense? If the child victim has any qualms about sending the perp to death row, he or she might also feel unhappy about sending someone to prison for life, no? I suppose it might possibly make some difference at some margins, but that seems to be a very shaky sort of empirical guesswork.
156: Perhaps, but the deterrence effects of the death penalty comprise a sandcastle of empirical guesswork, the stability of whose turrets we can endlessly argue. Nevertheless, I can't form a legal argument that our "evolving standards of decency" have even progressed to the point where we can agree that states shouldn't kill people. Alas.
44: Been out all day, but it's nice to know that Sir Kraab has my back.
Frank Powers fils did not secure the Libertarian nomination? What?!? Was the competition so tough? Were not the voters amused by the prospect of a ballet-confusing Oedipal battle? I am very disappointed in the people of Staten Island, and not for the first time.
I work with two survivors of childhood rape. They both identify continuing problems from the experience, but they've also both got lives that are successful in ways they want and happy and satisfying on many fronts. I also work with two siblings of murder victims. There are holes there cannot be fixed, things they regret in perpetuity not having done while their loved ones were alive and now can't be. I would (I hope) never trivialize rape, but I take life over death most of the time, including here.
From what I can tell, Kennedy's ruling is in detail craptacular, but I find that I just can't get very worked up over the prospect of some more people living, rather than feeding the execution machine that much more. I'm feeling some ongoing proportion shock, I guess, but if it kinks the cycle of death even a little, it's likely to do some good, even with as vile a prison system as ours. It at least leaves some room for the future.
I thought I'd read somewhere (and I can't remember exactly where) that Hillary had plenty of money in her campaign coffers to pay back her debts, the problem was that she'd spent her primary money dry and wasn't legally allowed to pay back primary debts with general election money. And that therefore the deal going on was for Obama to raise money to pay her primary debts, and in exchange she would work something out with her general election donors to get that money to Obama. So, a deal benefiting both parties, not pure extortion.
But I don't have time to find where I read this, and I may have misunderstood. Anyone know if I'm smoking crack or if this is real?
Going back to my methodological nihilism, for all the talk about legal philosophies and brilliant legal minds, this particular decision seems to have been made on the basis of an almost entirely ad hoc principle, or perhaps some kind of collocation of nine ad hoc principles. (Nine! Not seven! You won't catch me again!)
And considering that the brilliant legal mind in the group is Scalia, that's probably a good thing. I'm sure that he'd be able to prove that drawing and quartering is neither cruel nor unusual, if he felt the need to do so.
161: Yes, there are some complications but that seems to be the essence of the issue.
This is from McClatchy three weeks ago.
Clinton's latest report to the Federal Election Commission showed an April 30 cash balance of nearly $29.7 million, but that was deceiving. FEC spokesman George Smaragdis said the figure included $6 million in primary-season cash and $23.7 million in donations designated for the fall general election campaign. None of the general election donations can be used to retire debts accrued during the primary season.
Clinton's biggest problem, of course, is the $21 million in IOUs, which include $11,425,000 she is known to have lent her campaign through the first week of May and possibly millions of dollars more in yet-to-be-disclosed loans during her last-ditch primary campaign efforts.