Politics

Many liberal democracies made it illegal to deny the Holocaust, and some impose serious criminal penalities for doing so. The Netherlands even criminalizes 'relativizing' the Holocaust by calibrating its magnitude against other genocides and arguing that it is comparable. Some court judgments have even argued that it is just the pain that Holocaust denial causes Holocaust survivors which justifies the statute; others suggest that if Holocaust denial is permitted, the state risks the rebirth of Nazism as a serious danger. But it seems to me that the essence of living in a liberal state means that we have to be prepared to hear things we don't like. Everybody hates s…

David Stockman wrote a scathing indictment of the republican party - and not just the new guys, this is going back 40 years. It also repudiates Krugman's dismissal of deficit and insistence that we continue to play with fire and take more spending chances in the face of the largest deficit ever. Stockman apparently isn't impressed with appeals to economic plaques and prizes as he squarely blames Friedman in part one. Here's a guy that calls for austerity yet doesn't fit the Krugman accusation of "do it cuz pain is good for our fiscal religion". He calls for it because it's the heart of the problem - a nation spending more than it earns; living beyond our means.…

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38786992/ns/politics-white_house/ Same thing happened to Clinton, as I recall. He was pretty beaten-up by Monicagate and the impeachment trial towards the end of his 2nd term, as well as a small recession if memory serves, so he was due for a rise. But does Bush rate one? I don't know yet, it's too early for me, and I still disagree with him on too many subjects. It's suggested in this article that he would have opposed the Arizona immigration law and favored the "ground zero mosque", and I have the opposite views on those two issues. What do you all think?

One of the arguments in favour of the recent Arizona immigration law was that the illegals ARE here illegally; they are breaking the law. I want to know, is it a justified law? In Massachusetts, it is illegal to be an atheist; that doesn't make it a good law. Should we deport all the atheists and non-Christians in Massachusetts to another state? Of course not. Why should we not just grant citizenship to whomever wants it? It's not like immigration costs jobs. It might even help the economy with the increased tax money and increased spending.

I've only heard little bits and pieces so I was hoping some of our UK friends could fill us in. Here's a brief example: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129112347 One thing I haven't heard yet is what the Liberal Democrats think, since as I understand it Conservatives can't hold power without their cooperation. (Or am I behind the times on this?)

I can't find the video now but I believe Jon Stewart recently blasted conservatives saying that they were obsessing over around 7,000 children. But a new Pew study out this week says that actually 1 out of 12, or about 8% of the children born here each year, have parents who are in the country illegally. That's about 340,000 children. Not a small number at all. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/11/hispanic.study/?hpt=T2 The 14th Amendment guarantees their citizenship. But a recent groundswell of support has appeared amongst some Republican politicians to push for changing this with a new amendment that would overwrite that specific portion of the 14th amendm…

On Tuesday "The Hill" (a newspaper that reports on political events in Washington) posted an interview with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who took the opportunity to blast what he called the "professional left". http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/113431-white-house-unloads-on-professional-left Gibbs took a tremendous amount of flak over this, but it's the truth. The situation is no different from what we saw under George W. Bush, with the right wing upset because of bipartisan efforts even though moderates were abandoning the GOP in droves because they thought he was too far to the right. IMO it's centrists win elections…

I got this idea after waiting ages and having to walk quite a way to travel home in an empty a decaying and otherwise empty UK buss. Of course having a nice bus is more expensive and more of them is obviously a problem as well, but with a bit of technoligy there could be a solution. How about a system whereby people messege a central controll there current and intended destinations, the system sends them a neerby place to walk to and the time untill they need to be there. A bus then turnes up, much better condition than any current UK public busses, which should be almost full of people after the current people have got off and people waiting have got on. People can't…

Is this an example of win at any cost behavior of the right? http://blogs.alternet.org/oleoleolson/2010/08/05/massive-censorship-of-digg-uncovered/ Ok, i admit i was digging at the Righties a little bit but isn't this disturbing no matter which "side" you are on? Trying to hide the truth to support your world view? To me it's inexcusable!

On Friday the Senate passed, via unanimous consent, the Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act of 2010. From that wording it sounds like a new front in the War on Drugs, but as the title implies the bill, which passed by unanimous consent, only applies to the sale of drugs to minors (anyone under the age of 18). Some critics are saying that the wording is too broad and that it will cause problems for some adult users, but that could be addressed in a House version of the bill. Personally I think this is fine, and drug laws related to exposure to minors is something that Congress should do even if it legalizes marijuana use for adults. I'm not absolutely o…

John Stuart Mill, one of the 19th century founders of modern liberalism, stated that no country respectful of human liberty should make anything illegal unless it was clearly objectively harmful to someone. While this seems to be a sensible criterion for determing what should justly be made illegal in contrast from what the state should leave people free to do, it would have some startling consequences. For example, would incest between consenting adults qualify as harmful or would it have to be made legal? What about necrophilia of corpses with no living relatives? What about sex between humans and animals? Should a society assume the right to make things illegal si…

Obama has nominated Elena Kagan, the first female Solicitor General, as a Supreme Court justice. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8669268.stm Kagan has generally been received well among Democrats. Republicans apparently have "questions" for her. I've seen many complaints among non-Democrat liberals that she's too moderate and won't provide the balance needed to offset the conservative influence Bush added to the court with Roberts and Alito. I generally agree with this position and would like to see a more liberal nominee, however I don't directly oppose Kagan, other than I think it's a bit creepy how much she looks like Kevin James.

A new poll from Rasmussen shows that on the economy Obama-blame has finally oustripped Bush-blame. He gets one more percentile point -- 48 vs 47. This is easily within the margin of error, but it's a notable change from a year ago when he lead the former present by almost 20 points. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/august_2010/48_blame_obama_for_bad_economy_47_blame_bush Unfortunately for the GOP, Americans want them back in power even less than they want Democrats to stay in power, according to this Washington Post poll. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/the_real_reason_dems_are_tying.html Wha…

Recently a thread here asked whether Fox News Channel was a "legitimate" news outlet. I was surprised to see so many intelligent people here failing recognize the boots-on-the-ground reality of the American news landscape, and I don't mean the popularity of that network in the red states, I mean the simple reality of the mechanics of news reporting. So let me pose the subject a different way, stating my opinion in three key points: 1) Fox News Channel has become the "news of record" for the United States of America, supplanting the New York Times and Washington Post. 2) This is a good thing, because it introduces a kind of ideological competition that was despera…

I thought you all would appreciate this. I saw part of this quote in Politico's one-liners segment today, so I traced it back and found that it came from an appearance by Dee Snyder on the Wendy Williams show, which airs on Fox network affiliates. http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1007/the_week_in_oneliners_35.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PMRC

This comes from an interesting article that was posted by Newsweek a couple of days ago. Apparently there is a movement in this country dating back centuries, but which has been recently resurrected by some conservatives (including the Republican Party of Iowa), to acknowledge an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that is not currently recognized. They claim that the amendment was ratified, and should have become the 13th amendment, but people just "forgot" about it. (No, really.) The amendment itself is interesting, and perhaps sheds some light on their motivation. Though at first blush, it seems fairly harmless, right? So, one might as…

Police: "Do you understand your rights as they have been described to you?" Suspect: "Yes" Police: "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" Suspect: "Yes" The suspect said nothing further, but the jury convicted him, largely on that one-word confession. A court of appeals overturned the case because the police had not obtained a Miranda waiver, a common practice that notes the suspect's comprehension of his or her rights on paper, but neither party disputed the fact that the suspect had indicated that he understood his rights. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reinstated the conviction, and stated that a written waiver is not required…

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2010-07-28-cashcows28_ST_N.htm Where else would it be? The people predominantly at the top, who aren't necessarily in favor of Obama's agenda, aren't in any hurry to play into his hand, hoarding up record amounts of cash. I guess the question is how long will they hold out?

Currently there's a halt on all offshore drilling at "deep water" sites (not just new sites, but existing production). The original halt on sites over 500 feet deep was stopped by a lawsuit that continues, but a judge refused to support a moratorium, so the administration issued a second moratorium banning new activity by floating platforms, which is not yet being fought in court (some say it will be more difficult for the industry to attack legally). Is the moratorium necessary? I think this is a good question, and I haven't been able to fully decide, though I'm leaning toward "no" and I'm going to throw that opinion out there to spark discussion. My reasoning is…

or is it not? i'm not exactly willing to debate something here, it's just something that's been stuck in my head for sometime. if you choose what the majority chooses, you're saying what the majority chooses is right. that's wrong of course. a handful of smart people are able to and should decide what's better for the rest. iow, many people are like children, they need grownups to look after them and overwrite their "wants". an experienced advisor shouldn't have the same voice as a cook or a cab driver.

I just found out that Glenn Beck is a Mormon. The Tea Baggers went nuts with conspiracy theories about Obama being a Muslim, but we don't hear anything about Beck. That seems odd to me. I was under the impression that most Tea Party people are of the religious persuasion that thinks Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are non-Christian cults. Did I miss something?

French Parliament votes almost unanimously to ban the burqa. Fox News and CTR are ranting about how this means they're less tolerant of free speech than the US, but Bill O'Reilly pointed out, as have some columnists today, and the French themselves are saying, that this is actually a move against the men who force their women to wear them. The idea seems to be that a total ban is the only way to prevent this abuse. I think that's what France is doing, but I think it also lies in sync with French socialistic principles. That idea wouldn't fly in the US not because it's wrong to fight domestic abuse, but because it's wrong to place limitations on free speech even to …

The president is blaming Republicans being blamed for the non-extension of unemployment compensation, but I think he's playing politics. - Republicans aren't saying "no", they're saying "pay for it", as in fund it without adding to the debt. - There's still unspent stimulus money. If unemployment compensation is stimulus as the administration claims, then why hasn't it proposed using that money to pay for the extension? What do you think?

Great article by Roger Simon at Politico, talking about how a number of progressive special interests are forming their own "movement". The groups include unions AFL-CIO and that whacky, always-getting-into-trouble SEIU, the NAACP (who recently declared the tea party movement "racist" in one of the boldest pot-kettle-black moves in recent politics) and the National Council of La Raza. Most people have probably never heard of the latter, but it's a hispanic activism group ("La Raza" means "The Race"). Simon compares the collection to the tea parties, saying that while the tea parties are a movement in search of a leader, progressives are many leaders in search of a move…

I'm sure someone has posed these questions and I simply haven't found the post yet. Google is filled with this rhetoric and I was hoping one of you might set me straight on the issue. Please don't quote me on the following, but it's verbatim from the internet. If the quotes below are true, I repeat, "TRUE", then: WE have BEEN "HAD" BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT OFFICALS FOR NOT CHALLANGING THIS MAN"S PRESIDENCY? IF NOT TRUE, THEN ME AND OTHERS LIKE ME, OWE HIM OUR APOLOGIES. THE FOLLOWING ARE QUOTES FROM GOOGLE: *BARACK OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DUE TO THE FOLLOWING: * The United States Constitution mandates the President of the …