The cow smiled and went on munching hay. The sheep were sheepish. The dog wagged its tail. The pig knew it hadn't lifted a finger, but sensed there was something in it for him, so he said nothing, but nestled a little deeper in the mud.
Just outside the barnyard, a wise old owl said, "Who?"
"Yes, that's right. This farm is built on your sweat, on your bodies, on your contributions. If we just got rid of the farmer, in fact, and turned to collective action, this farm would work a lot better. There would be more chow for everyone. You could have some moonshine. And all the wild animals that are out there could come in from the cold and be domesticated. We first just have to declaw them, and then classify them, and finally, we will have permanent peace." Obama paused and lit up a cigarette and exhaled. "It'll be a breeze with me as your new master." The animals voted him in, and the farmer was taken to a reeducation camp and dealt with via Zyklon B as he was denounced as vermin, unfit to reproduce.
A fox was standing outside the barnyard and was skeptical. The fox said from outside the barnyard, "He's a national socialist. A wolf in sheep's clothing. I'm looking out for you."
The fox wanted the farm to remain intact because every once in a while he could carry off a chicken or a baby pig. If the farm collapsed, or was no longer run efficiently, he would have to work to find something to eat. As it was, he lived off the farmer's labor and pork belly futures.
Obama cited a lot of facts. How there were bridges and roads to nowhere that could be built. How they could take the money the farmer had deposited in the piggy bank for several generations, and pay themselves out of that. Obama said there were other benefits once they had gotten rid of the last of the farmers and make himself the presider (or president) over the economy. He said if one of the animals were hurt, they could have a vet come and fix them, and it would be absolutely free. It wouldn't cost a Roosevelt dime. Plus they could have perfect freedom!
"Also, I will develop new energy sources," said Obama.
The cow sensed that this was manure, but he liked mooching so said nothing. He was tired of being milked.
The little red hen was the one animal inside the barnyard that kept on planting and ploughing in earnest. But soon Obama got mad at the animal's industry (it was too much like independence) and chopped off her head and ate her for supper.
"I have a cousin over in Zimbabwe who also got rid of the farmers. His name is Robert Mugabe. Now there's a lot more for everyone in Zimbabwe," Obama crowed. "Collectivization is priceless."
120 comments:
Kirby,
The cow sensed that this was manure, but he liked mooching so said nothing. He was tired of being milked.
If your cow is a "he," that white stuff isn't milk.
What did Chicken Little say?
i'm holding out
for a horse of a different color
good one stu
(: ) ( :)
. \
. \..../
. ---
Careful with propaghandi like that, Comrade. You're likely to get droned.
And probably some buddy of yours as collateral damage.
And just make sure your kids are somewhere far away.
Everyone is talking now about Obama's drone war. He drones on and on. Unable to face any truth except his own endless lies, destroying, by Jove, from the air.
Can anything stop this madness?
The first step is to recognize it, and to remind ourselves that he isn't God. Many have confused this, or at least think he's on God's side.
Je m'en doute.
Rouault was on God's side. He was on the side of beauty but only via the immense ugliness of the absolute truth. No Democrat even cares about the truth any longer.
It's not in them.
Everyone is talking now about Obama's drone war. He drones on and on. Unable to face any truth except his own endless lies, destroying, by Jove, from the air.
Can anything stop this madness?
The first step is to recognize it, and to remind ourselves that he isn't God. Many have confused this, or at least think he's on God's side.
Je m'en doute.
Rouault was on God's side. He was on the side of beauty but only via the immense ugliness of the absolute truth. No Democrat even cares about the truth any longer.
It's not in them.
Kirby,
Everyone is talking now about Obama's drone war. He drones on and on.
Several remarks.
1) The topics of drones came up before here. I'll note the February 27, 2008 thread "Last Night's Debate" in which you spoke approving of Obama's willingness to use drones, e.g., to kill OBL. The anti-drone argument was being made by WW, and I agree with most of the arguments she made.
2) Obama's use of drones is a continuation of policies of the Bush administration. I objected to Bush's use, and I object to Obama's. In practical terms, you applauded Bush's use, but now criticize the same policy now that Obama's President. It seems to me that there are two reasonable hypotheses here: one is that your position on drones has evolved, the other is that if Obama's for it, you're against it. I know which of those alternatives seems more likely to me.
3) A strong executive under our system of checks and balances can only exist absent effective challenges from Congress and the Courts. But those checks aren't working, because the Republicans have decided that they prefer Congress to be dysfunctional. As for the Courts, they're a bit more sensitive to precedent, and for the most part reluctant to appear overly partisan. At present, it doesn't matter what party the President is from, he's going to use his office, together with the national security apparatus, to increase his power, and he will do so until we have a functioning Congress.
Not sure if Pres Bush II authorized the targeted killing of American citizens outside combat zones. Perhaps stu has evidence on this question.
Not sure as well if stu thinks the Pres and administration officials authorizing and effecting these targeted killings should be prosecuted for war crimes, just as stu advocated in the cases of three terrorist suspects who were "water-boarded" in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks.
As for the Rs performance in Congress, they've drawn up and passed budgets, though the D Senate, like the Pres, refuses to do so, preferring to play the extortion game with the Rs.
In addition, the Obama administration continues to defy both Congress (e.g., in tyhe case of the DOMA Act) and federal courts (e.g., on drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico and on recess appointments).
"Dysfunctional" Congress or (toujours deja) "overreaching" executive? I know which one seems more likely to stu. . . .
JADL
i haven't heard anything from mainline churches even to some embarrassment in my own garden nobody seems to be standing up saying WTF drones really people c'mon now do we want drones is this helping nobody i thin one french bishop stuck his neck out and then pulled it back in some of the ecclesial leaders in the middle east have been mildly vociferous but overall it seems we're all a bit dumbfounded by drones perhaps we put them into a make believe category we don't see them we don't hear them maybe it's a hollywood spoof a cartoon they seem so secret and silent
for the moral outrage they should elicit there is hardly any i'm with GM
stop the PHUQQIN drones
jh
Sir James,
Not sure if Pres Bush II authorized the targeted killing of American citizens outside combat zones. Perhaps stu has evidence on this question.
I don't believe he did, although I also believe based on the things that he did do that had he felt it in the US security interest to kill a US citizen abroad without judicial review, he'd have done so. Do you disagree? I honestly can't recall a single time when the US under either Bush or Obama used the rule of law to circumscribe its freedom of action in the "war on terror." Can you?
Let me also note that the "outside combat zones" is a pretty big hole, cf. Hamdi and Padilla. In particular, note the Bush administration finding that a US citizen may be considered to be an enemy combatant. FWIW, I do consider the targeted killing of American civilians outside of the US to be an escalation, but it is one that fits into the same flawed legal limbo as GWB's "unlawful combatant" and Guantanamo.
The legal issue here is essentially jurisdictional. Who has jurisdiction over individuals held by the US outside of US territory? Bush argued "no one," and the courts more-or-less allowed that to stand. It was a mistake.
FWIW, I think that to condemn one of Bush or Obama on these issues, and to praise the other, is raw hypocracy.
Not sure as well if stu thinks the Pres and administration officials authorizing and effecting these targeted killings should be prosecuted for war crimes, just as stu advocated in the cases of three terrorist suspects who were "water-boarded" in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks.
Because Al-Awlaki is a US citizen, and because we're not at war in Yemen, "war crime" is not the right charge. This is a US criminal matter, and the courts should not permit lawlessness under the guise of "national security interests." But they do, and have. So yes, I believe that Obama (or who ever authorized the killing) is guilty of murder and should be tried for it, as should Bush et. al., for their presumptive crimes. Part of the point here is that they should be permitted a vigorous defense, and if there are matters material to the defense that cannot be made public, then those portions of the trial should be private. My argument has never been for a show trial, but rather a proper, neutral, judicial review.
As for the Rs performance in Congress, they've drawn up and passed budgets, though the D Senate, like the Pres, refuses to do so, preferring to play the extortion game with the Rs.
The Constitutional responsibility for adopting a budget lies with Congress, cf., Article I, Sections 8 and 9. Under the same Article, Section 7, all revenue bill must originate in the House. The Congress may choose to pass laws delegating its responsibility to other parties, but that delegation is ineffective under the Constitution.
(1 of 2)
(2 of 2)
In addition, the Obama administration continues to defy both Congress (e.g., in tyhe case of the DOMA Act)
The President is required to uphold the Constitution, and indeed so affirms in his oath of office. The President believes DOMA to be unconstitutional, and so he is acting in accordance with the responsibilities of his office.
and federal courts (e.g., on drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico and on recess appointments).
The Feldman contempt finding regarding drilling permits was overturned by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals on November 28, 2012. Do your homework!
As regards recess appointments, the first was made by George Washington (of John Rutledge as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court). You might remember John Bolton's recess appointment as US ambassador to the UN. The question as to whether pro forma sessions of Congress are sufficient to preclude recess appointments remains a more difficult and vexing legal question than you credit.
In particular, I expect that the SCOTUS will grant certiorari on Canning v. NLRB, which I think is dispositive in the negative as regards your claim of defiance whatever may be ultimately decided. Moreover, I expect that SCOTUS will overturn the Appelate decision, which is a truly awful precedent.
(3 of 2)
"Dysfunctional" Congress or (toujours deja) "overreaching" executive? I know which one seems more likely to stu
I argued for both, with the former causative of the latter. Didn't you follow?
But I also argued that it was as true of Bush as it is of Obama, and indeed I argued then that you guys would rue the precedents he was setting. I'll give you guys credit for this, you've proven that it's easier to eat crow if you pretend it's caviar.
Early on I thought that the targeted use of drones against OBL was a good idea. However, they have now become the whole method of staging Obama's wars throughout the Middle East and now much of Africa. The only time he didn't use them was in Benghazi, for the central reason that the drones on hand were not weaponized.
I see that Obama wants to limit American casualties. That keeps him popular.
Popularity is his central criterion for many things. I can understand that.
I also understand not wanting to senselessly lose American lives in what amounts to a worldwide quagmire.
Nevertheless, I think verification of drone victims (who are often blown to smithereens) is going to be difficult. I also think his unilateral approach to applying drone blasts allows for secrecy, and allows for speed, but doesn't allow for any form of oversight.
Obama loves that last thing. He doesn't want oversight. He and his honchos want to rush things through Congress.
Reagan did that and was nearly impeached over Iran-Contra. Bush II did something similar with his claim that WMD were present in Iraq which required an immediate strike. He somehow got the CIA to sign on to this fiction.
We have had many problems with rogue presidents of late. While I supported Bush and Reagan to an extent, I don't support Obama, partially because I fear his political viewpoint. I trusted Reagan and Bush to only hit people I couldn't stand.
Still, neither one would have hit the DNC.
I have no doubt that Obama would hit a Fox affiliate if he thought he could get away with it. He'd hit the WSJ. He'd hit me, if I were important enough. With al Qaeda combatants he himself has squeaked that he wants Miranda Rights for all combatants irregardless of their commitments.
Drone strikes indicate he really doesn't care about what he's saying. Obama's word magic almost never matches the reality of what he's doing.
He throws up smoke screens and then proceeds. I want him stayed and stopped and at least slowed.
We still don't really even know who's side he's on in almost anything. He will do whatever it takes to remain popular, I suppose. He's a demagogue in that sense.
Droning is not conscionable if he's the one doing it, and if it becomes a central thrust of his policy, as it clearly has. It limits American casualties, but increases collateral damage, by which I mean children and women are getting blown apart. A more discriminating use of force is needed if we are to win the war of hearts and minds throughout the Islamic world.
A drone strike on OBL is not the same as a drone strike on a less-well known leader, who may even be an American citizen. It's hard to get these guys. I understand that.
But casual terror from the skies is unprincipled and isn't going to win us any friends in that area.
It might even kill a few.
Plus, I don't like Obama, and don't trust anything he does. I don't want him to have any power at all. Since he's the president, at least I want some Constitutional locks on his power. He's doing everything he can to get rid of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
He's a madman.
I want him to slow down. As he won't, as he's in a hurry, I at least want him to be slowed down by whatever Constitutional features we still possess. He's moving fast on many fronts, and he's using the force of rhetoric to drive everyone before him. He's a terrifying demagogue with absolutely no wisdom and no decent tradition.
His only tradition is that of Saul Alinsky and Bill Ayres. He claims the mantle of Christianity via his pastor, but he's thrown that pastor under the bus. I think we have to assume that his only real tradition is that of a "community organizer" in the tradition of Alinsky and Ayres.
Sir stu, I did honestly forget to grant your consistency on the issue of drone strikes, and though I disagree (and agree in this with both Pres Obama and with Prof John Yoo, one of your favourites, I know), I'll accept your admission that targeted assassinations of American citizens abroad, um, might be an "ever-so-slight" escalation over "water-boarding" terrorist suspects. Not sure about the justification for killing his son a few weeks later. There's got to be more than an administration official saying he had had a bad father. . . .
On the recess appointments issue, I think the federal appeals court opted for the correct decision and that presidential recess appointments can only be made during "the" (definite article) normal recess period of the Senate, not any time the President chooses to invoke a supposed "recess" (including during so-called "pro-forma" sessions, long week-ends, etc.).
Thanks for the update I missed on the 5th Circuit overturning the Feldman decision, though I'd have to agree with the dissenting opinion on the contempt issue that "[t]he court's power to enforce its orders must remain intact, even in the midst of the most critical emergencies of the state. Simply put, the Judiciary may be the least dangerous branch, but it is not entirely toothless" (Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod).
Of course I followed your "dysfunction" claim, but that's not dispositive in the case of an executive wrongly arrogating powers that are not constitutionally sanctioned.
JADL
It's very hard to identify anyone in the Middle East. First of all they all look the same (and that's without the headgear) and secondly all of them seem to have the name Al followed by a bunch of gobbledygook. If you're shooting at them from 10 thousand feet I assume the problems of identification will just exponentially increase especially at night. Even in ZDH Maya's breakthrough was that the courier was a doppelganger of a soldier presumed dead who was his brother. This makes targeting the correct persons rather ticklish if not to say tortuous in the extreme. But as Hillary would say what does it really matter if we're fighting a war or looking at the sunset it's all the same.
Sir James,
Sir stu, I did honestly forget to grant your consistency on the issue of drone strikes, and though I disagree (and agree in this with both Pres Obama and with Prof John Yoo, one of your favourites, I know), I'll accept your admission that targeted assassinations of American citizens abroad, um, might be an "ever-so-slight" escalation over "water-boarding" terrorist suspects.
You're more than a bit evasive here. Bush also authorized drone strikes in targeted killings of people believed to be members of Al-Qaeda. Members who were foreign citizens, 'tis true, but it seems to me that his scope in this regard was limited only by opportunity. To me, murder is murder, irrespective of the citizenship of the victim, although the particular law under which such murder might be prosecuted may differ. So I don't see much of a difference, and my claim of escalation (unadorned by adjective, contrary to the misleading quotes you put around "ever-so-slight") stands.
Bush authorized 50-ish (the exact number seems to be uncertain, but this is a generally accepted estimate) drone strikes, Obama 350-ish. The difference in rates is substantial, although there's good reason to believe it only reflects the growth in size of the drone fleet, and so opportunity. But the legal "justifications" (scare quotes here to indicate contempt, not your usage) are the same. The Obama drone doctrine is the Bush drone doctrine.
Not sure about the justification for killing his son a few weeks later.
The administration claim is that the son was an innocent victim of the targeted killing of Ibrahim al-Banna. But claims were also made that the son was of military age. He was not.
On the recess appointments issue, I think the federal appeals court opted for the correct decision and that presidential recess appointments can only be made during "the" (definite article) normal recess period of the Senate, not any time the President chooses to invoke a supposed "recess" (including during so-called "pro-forma" sessions, long week-ends, etc.).
George W. Bush made 141 intra-session recess appointments, in addition to "ordinary" 30 inter-session appointments. The fact that these intra-session appointments are only now viewed as constitutionally problematic is simply further evidence of Republican obstruction, rather than evidence of Obama's defiance, per your claim.
Thanks for the update I missed on the 5th Circuit overturning the Feldman decision
You're welcome.
though I'd have to agree with the dissenting opinion on the contempt issue that "[t]he court's power to enforce its orders must remain intact, even in the midst of the most critical emergencies of the state. Simply put, the Judiciary may be the least dangerous branch, but it is not entirely toothless" (Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod).
I agree too, but I don't think this is a sufficient basis for dissent. There's also the minor issue that Feldman's financial disclosures showed that he personally held stock in Exxon-Mobil while the case was being tried, and this was not his only financial interest in the oil industry at the time. He should have recused himself.
Of course I followed your "dysfunction" claim, but that's not dispositive in the case of an executive wrongly arrogating powers that are not constitutionally sanctioned.
I'm inclined to agree -- this is exactly my criticism of Bush, but Republicans were generally speaking either silent or supportive. The precedents he set, his successor has followed. And what this President does, his successors will do to. That's why I argued the rule of law mattered during the Bush administration, and why I still argue so today. The fact that you argue for the rule of law during Democratic administrations, but live the law of acquiescence during Republican administrations is lethal to your moral standing here.
Wiki claims that the syrup of ipecac is no longer used in the ER to induce vomiting in patients who have ingested poison.
craig brings up a very good point
Sir stu, few notes:
1. Alleged crimes committed during the War on Terror:
I brought up "water-boarding" because that was the basis for your repeated claims in past that the Bush administration was criminally culpable. Now you seem to have shifted your argument to a "tu quoque" or "Bush-did-it-too--well, sorta" claim in response to the criticisms of Pres Obama's several escalations in the war already mentioned.
2. Recess appointments:
Your claim that "[t]he fact that these intra-session appointments are only now viewed as constitutionally problematic is simply further evidence of Republican obstruction" isn't true. For example, in reaction to one Bush recess appointee to an appeals court, William H Pryor Jr, e.g., Sen Durbin is quoted as follows:
“I agree with Senator Kennedy that Mr. Pryor’s recess appointment, which occurred during a brief recess of Congress, could easily be unconstitutional. It was certainly confrontational. Recess appointments lack the permanence and independence contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution” (Sen. Durbin, Congressional Record, S.6253, 6/9/05).
3. On the contempt of court decision:
I cited only a concluding statement by Judge Elrod in the dissent. Her opinion is nearly as long as the other two judges who decided for the Dept of Interior and includes citation of the Interior Dept's attempts to falsify the investigative results of expert scientific and engineering opinion on the risks of Gulf drilling operations (p 16ff).
(http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/11/11-30936-CV0.wpd.pdf)
Yes, Judge Feldman's recusal was argued by environmental activist groups, though he rejected this claim as "without merit." In a cursory reading of the decision, I didn't see any mention of it. Minor issue, agreed.
4. The "argumentum ex silentio" ("argument from silence," implying consent) in my case won't pass muster unless you can show that we actually discussed the legality of drone attacks before now (I don't recall such exchanges, do you?). For your "rule of law" rubric could cover a myriad of legal and constitutional issues relative to the War on Terror.
JADL
There are the crimes of commission: drone attacks on Americans and others without oversight. I don't know if they would be crimes in criminal courts but in Stu's court they are crimes.
What about crimes of omission? The WH now confirms that Obama made absolutely no phone calls and was essentially unreachable on the night of 9/11 last year when our ambassador in Benghazi was torched. But this could also hide yet another rhetorical trick. Panetta and others say they didn't TALK with Obama. But did he text them? I assume that this is the trick. They were texting, and so there is still a record but no one has had the wits to ask: was there a record IN ANY FORMAT of communication between the various personnel?
I just read this on Althouse, who links to something called Powerline:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/02/white-house-confirms-obama-did-nothing-on-benghazi.php
Did Obama go into ostrich mode? Is he still in that mode? did he then just invent an excuse having to do with the film? We still don't know who invented that excuse.
It more or less scapegoats a film maker and seems to indicate a willingness to tamp down not only on the second amendment, but the first.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/02/white-house-confirms-obama-did-nothing-on-benghazi.php
What are the rationale of Just War? One at least is self-defense. We have the right to defend ourselves and our embassies and the ambassadors within them. To not defend Stevens seems unconscionable unless Obama wanted him dead for some reason. I assume he just didn't want to look weak just before an election, and the media didn't want him to look weak either since they were all in the tank for him.
Why Obama would want Ambassador Stevens killed is something I wouldn't know. Why wouldn't he have been available?
Althouse thinks he muffed it and was ashamed so he continues to stonewall and point fingers or just change the subject or stonewall.
Others say O has no capacity for shame, but is just hoping the issue will go away, so that the blame will never really attach itself to him. Lindsay Graham is not going to let that happen.
The MSM doesn't want any shame to attach to Obama. They instead want to shame anyone who attempts to do that, tarring them as racist.
The only reason anyone could ever have a reason to doubt Obama's leadership is because they are racist, because obviously he's perfect. But this Benghazi thing won't go away. People on the left dream that it will.
But it's just too bizarre. Obama was completely sequestered during the attack, and refused to do or say anything, then he launched a bunch of lies, and now he's stonewalling? That's the narrative emerging on the right. So we have drone attacks on the one hand, but crimes of omission, and then a cover-up on the other hand.
And the whole media except Fox and places like Washington Times is helping Obama to stonewall, putting into effect an almost completely blackout on news about Benghazi. It's as if the word itself cannot appear in most publications. If we don't address the issues of Benghazi, won't they just recurrently repeat themselves?
Can the media just go into ostrich format, and pure denial, forever?
On another point: can I ask JADL what he meant by the word "dispositive" used as a verb in one of his comments upthread? It means to dispose of property issues I thought, but how is it used here?
I've tried out various meanings: to be disposed toward.
To have a certain disposition.
To dispose of something.
I can't quite make out how it's being used here. In some legal sense?
Kirby, thanks for your links and summaries of plausible speculations on the Pres's dubious responses (or lack of) to the Benghazi attacks.
Seems evident the major media have repeatedly covered for the omissions and commissions of the Obama WH (compare, e.g., the endless MSM coverage of the Plame affair during the Bush administration and the relatively sparse attention devoted to Benghazi affair of a far more serious and tragic nature). Seems evident also the MSM memory is very short when something the Protean Obama said a relatively short time ago conflicts with or contradicts some new pronunciamento he is making.
On the drone wars, Charles Krauthammer's defence of them is here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/340747/defense-obama-s-drone-war-charles-krauthammer
Glenn Greenwald's attack on them is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/14/cia-aclu-drone-secrecy
Sir James,
I brought up "water-boarding" because that was the basis for your repeated claims in past that the Bush administration was criminally culpable.
It is and was an adequate justification. These were manifest violations of the Geneva Conventions and of US law. But this is dissembling on your part -- clearly the context of my "escalation" remark was in Obama's use of extra-judicial targeted killings vs. Bush's use of the same.
But there is something that changed since our earlier discussions, and that is a fuller understanding of the scope of the drone war under Bush and of its continuation and expansion under Obama. We knew in 2008 of the targeted killings of a very few, very high-level al Qaeda operatives. We did not know then of how common these killings were. As the scale of the killings became more apparent, our understanding of them, and of the "collateral damage" they cause, has become clearer.
It is one thing to be targeting high-level al Qaeda operatives, who are few in number and who have been of intense interest and investigation. But Bush's 50 strikes cannot all of killed al Qaeda's #2, let alone Obama's 350-ish, with man-years of intelligence gathering and analysis behind each. Broader targeting necessarily implies less vetting, more mistakes, and more "collateral damage."
“I agree with Senator Kennedy that Mr. Pryor’s recess appointment, which occurred during a brief recess of Congress, could easily be unconstitutional. It was certainly confrontational. Recess appointments lack the permanence and independence contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution”
Let me quibble with Senator Durbin. The Constitution instituted recess appointments because its founders wanted to make a tradeoff between the exigencies of necessity (which might require a position to be filled) and a desire to permit Senate recess. So the tradeoff explicitly allowed by the Constitution was shorter term recess appointments. This is by design, and quite clearly the framers of the Constitution intended exactly this.
Historically, at least according to the wiki article, Presidents used recess appointments in this exigency-based sense, but also as a way of evading senatorial disapproval of a particular candidate. This is nothing new to Obama, and you lie if you imply that it is. The hope in the old days was that a short-term "try out" would prove the worthiness of the nominee, facilitating permanent appointment later. But in today's partisan atmosphere, recess appointments are more likely to harden opposition than to lead to eventual acceptance, not that Bolton's actual behavior at the UN was going to win over any opposing Democratic senators.
And historically, the Senate has used its power of advice and consent to block nominations because it felt the nominee was too ideological or partisan (e.g., Fortas, Bork), not competent (Carswell, Miers), or compromised (Ginsburg). What is new is the Republican's use of the fillibuster together with the power of advice and consent for nullification: e.g., by not approving anyone to fill the slots in the NLRB so it can't make quorum, or not approving anyone to be chair of the CFPB. The Republican objections are not to the individual, but to the office. I don't believe the framers of the constitution anticipated this abuse of senatorial power, or such a refusal to do the duties of that office.
The "argumentum ex silentio" ("argument from silence," implying consent) in my case won't pass muster unless you can show that we actually discussed the legality of drone attacks before now (I don't recall such exchanges, do you?).
I don't need to: Mentions of "drone" on Lutheran Surrealism. There have been a number of such discussions. You're welcome to consider your part (and mine) in each.
Kirby, just saw your post with the question about the adjective "dispositive," in this case meaning conclusive, decisive, or settling the matter.
JADL
What are the weapons that the drones possess? What is hitting those on the ground? Why were the drones in Benghazi unarmed?
JADL: thanks for the update on dispositive, which just seems to be mean "not entirely disposed with" now (the verb in the sentence). It's almost funny how many ways that word can be used.
Dispositions of various commenters are now a bit more equal since you've reentered the fray.
I don't know what happened to Picklesworth. He was helping me out for a while, too.
Stu, when you say that someone "lies" or "lied" because they have a different viewpoint than you have, I think this is too strong. You've done it to me before. You have to remember that some of us may weight facts differently than you do, or perceive them differently, or have another framework for viewing a problem, etc.
I don't think anyone here deliberately lies. There's no reason to do it. We're all after the truth, and no one wants to merely win. What would be the point?
While Obama lies all day, and all night, I don't think any one of us has any such dark motive. Why would we? The only thing to gain here is the truth, and so to lie, would prevent that gain.
So I think no one is doing it.
Sir stu, in the absence of earlier evidence you failed to produce that I argued for drone attacks (e.g., in your specific reference to a 2008 discussion here, in which quite a number of topics were discussed), I'll have to conclude you've vacated any positive claim in this and are left only with the specious "silent" claim.
Now some of what you've mentioned about recess appointments in the past seems warranted, though again, your claim about recess appointments not being seen as constitutionally "problematical" before stands corrected by Sen Durbin's remark (in 2005) and by his reference to Sen Kennedy's (if correct), QED.
Again, the argument from silence won't work either, for you haven't produced any earlier opinion I've offered on the subject nor any that I silently assented to at the time. Some of the references you linked to are to completely other uses of the word "drone," and where your earlier comments touch on the subject ("inter alia multa"--"among many other things"), I hadn't taken them up. Although failing to take up every point another commentator makes in an argument may indicate silent approval, or even concession, it may also show more interest in another point, or deference to another who is addressed in the exchange (as the 2008 rejoinder to Kirby).
JADL
In many cases "facts" that are produced by the MSM or that are followed by Dems such as "global warming" are simply disbelieved because of the kinds of people who take these venues seriously or who produce them. The Farmer's Almanac has a piece in this year's mag that says that the sun is calming down for a spell now which is going to yield a possible renewed Little Ice Age that may last 25 years. I can understand Gore signing on to the global warming panic. He seems to be trying to turn into a walrus however just in case the weather goes in the other direction.
As for all the arcane facts and figures to do with drone strikes I think it's probably something new to look into because until now the coverage has been scanty. But it's being pressed as a pressing issue by Feinstein and some others right now who have the ear of the media. Therefore, it will get more play.
Righties are now beginning to argue that Obama has them all over the world, even all over America, and can hit any one of us at will.
I think if he were to hit me as GM implies, there might very well be an investigation. Even the MSM has its limits. Bam could say oops I pressed the wrong button and get away with it maybe like ten times, but I doubt if I'm on his top ten list of targets.
It's one thing to take out a terrorist leader on a rocky and lonely road over the Khyber Pass, but I don't think he can hit college profs at state colleges quite yet.
He'd probably send in Seal Team Six to take me out. But little does anyone know that I was once a member of Seal Team Seven. But wait, that's classified. I wasn't supposed to talk about... that. Well, now that the secret is out I can only say that I know about fifty languages and can dodge drone strikes all day long. So bring it on, BO!
Kirby,
What are the weapons that the drones possess?
They vary, naturally. The most common drone used in targeted killings is most likely the General Atomics MQ-1 Predator, which can carry two AGM-114 Hellfire missles. These missles have been in the US arsenal for a long time (since '84, per wiki). They can carry a number of payloads, but presumably the payloads in use are high explosives, likely incorporating shrapnel. They travel at Mach 1.3, and have an operational range of up to 5 miles.
What is hitting those on the ground?
The missle's body, blast effect from the high explosives, and shrapnel.
Why were the drones in Benghazi unarmed?
Because these drones were used solely in a reconnaisance role, and not as weapons platforms. This may mean that a different type of drone was being used (not all of the US drones are weapons-capable), and it might mean that weapons were not loaded, e.g., to improve platform loiter time.
JADL: thanks for the update on dispositive, which just seems to be mean "not entirely disposed with" now (the verb in the sentence). It's almost funny how many ways that word can be used.
Sir James provided an accurate gloss -- you misread it. In the context of debate, dispositive essentially means conclusive, i.e., this argument/evidence disposes of/concludes the debate. There is no more to be said.
Stu, when you say that someone "lies" or "lied" because they have a different viewpoint than you have, I think this is too strong.
I did not say that Sir James lied. I phrased this conditionally. There is no dispute that Bush used intra-session recess appointments, nor that he did so because the appointees would have have been confirmed. A claim that Obama is somehow uniquely contemptuous in using recess appointment to make appointment that the Senate could not have confirmed (due to fillibuster abuse) is a lie. So I don't think that claiming such a statement would be a lie, were it to be made, is too strong at all.
I'm just laying notice that this is not a line that should be crossed, without explicitly noticing whether or not it has been.
While Obama lies all day, and all night,
Ah, so after your diatribe about lying, you immediately accuse someone else of lying? This is not worthy.
Kirby, you anticipated my suggestion to Sir stu that he might reduce the number of his accusations of lying in general and avoid making them altogether against others here. Unless of course we've applied some diminishing caveat such as making a devil's advocate argument or engaging in evident sarcasm, I don't think any of us regulars deliberately claim what they know to be false. Besides, often repeated charges of lying can often reduce the rhetorical gravity of the charge.
You got a laugh from me on your Gore bit as well as on refusing to play the comic drone in droning on about the drone issue (and hat tip to GM, who started it off by a new use of the verb "to drone," as in "y'all don't get yourself droned now!").
JADL
Sir James,
Sir stu, in the absence of earlier evidence you failed to produce that I argued for drone attacks (e.g., in your specific reference to a 2008 discussion here, in which quite a number of topics were discussed), I'll have to conclude you've vacated any positive claim in this and are left only with the specious "silent" claim.
I provided the link via Google. Don't pretend otherwise.
Now some of what you've mentioned about recess appointments in the past seems warranted, though again, your claim about recess appointments not being seen as constitutionally "problematical" before stands corrected by Sen Durbin's remark (in 2005) and by his reference to Sen Kennedy's (if correct), QED.
Questions were raised, but Durbin was just grousing. He didn't sue. Your nullificationists did. There's a material difference.
Again, the argument from silence won't work either, for you haven't produced any earlier opinion I've offered on the subject nor any that I silently assented to at the time.
All I can do in terms of silence is to produce the entire archive of Lutheran Surrealism and invite you to read it. All you have to do to refute it is to point out a single instance where you argued against Bush's use of drones. One of these is reasonable, the other not.
Some of the references you linked to are to completely other uses of the word "drone,"
True enough. Drone has been used in several senses. But the point here is that the 23 hits Google returns is a lot in one sense (we have discussed drones before in the sense used here, as early as 2008), but not so many that they can't be looked at one at a time.
Although failing to take up every point another commentator makes in an argument may indicate silent approval, or even concession, it may also show more interest in another point, or deference to another who is addressed in the exchange (as the 2008 rejoinder to Kirby).
This I will grant. But a hysterical response to what Obama did, coupled with a lack of timely criticism of what Bush did, when objectively they were doing the exact same thing, is dispositive that you're arguing from partisanship and not from principle.
Sir stu, I simply don't know what "hysterical response" on my part you're talking about.
And by the way, I did have time this afternoon to peruse the archive you linked to, and on the only occasions when drone attacks were were discussed in any detail (e.g., the posts in October 2012), I wasn't even a participant in those discussions. Consider that perusal a special indulgence to you as well as a refutation of your claims.
JADL
Stu Stu I only claimed that our regulars don't lie as we have no rationale to do so. Obama gains much through lies and stonewalling and throwing facts around. Even Huffpo fact checked the Sotu à nd laughed at his distortions and lies. But we here get nothingnout of such shenanigans. The only thing to win here is a better grasp of the objective truth.
Sir James,
And by the way, I did have time this afternoon to peruse the archive you linked to, and on the only occasions when drone attacks were were discussed in any detail (e.g., the posts in October 2012), I wasn't even a participant in those discussions. Consider that perusal a special indulgence to you as well as a refutation of your claims.
I have to admit, insisting you said nothing is a novel defense against an accusation of silence.
Kirby,
Even Huffpo fact checked the Sotu à nd laughed at his distortions and lies
Cite, please. I found one Huffington Post article that involved partisan replies to Obama's speach, explicitly citing Ryan and others. But I did not find a specific fact checking article.
Inaugural maybe. I'm on Kindle and can't search. They laughed at his roads and bridges gag and about how all his ideas wouldn't cost a dime.
Your satire would be more consistent with reality if it started this way:
The local farm bureau met and then gathered at Farmer John's ranch. They cornered Farmer John, and said, "you didn't build this. We're farmers, we know."
They confiscated the property rights, both real and personal.
Then they fed the farm animals some SugarPops to keep them fat and happy.
Lalalalala
WW
Stu,
Would you please provide a link to the comments I made against drones? I think you said it was Feb, 2008. I'm not arguing....I just would like to read what I wrote.
Thanks.
Wendy
Facts are difficult to pull out of the wreckage of political discussion. If I were to say "Liberals love America the way that Brian Mitchell loved Elizabeth Smart" where would the fact checking begin? I am upping the ante from Ann Coulter's phrase "liberals love America like OJ loved Nicole." That part might be factual. You might complain I didn't get the abductor's name right. You might argue whether that is love. But most political discussion is a variant on that. BO is a Nero who fiddled while Benghazi burned. Bush is a Cyclops who ate America's men. The factual part of political discussion is small enough to be called petty. I do think facts matter but not much. Fictions matter more. We have a fact of 16.5 trillion dollars in debt. How did we get there? Let the fictions begin to multiply the fractions through factitious fictions.
Wendy,
Would you please provide a link to the comments I made against drones?
I'm glad to: LS: Last Night's Debate. They're comments to be proud of.
Definition of Democracy - 'Fratricidal factions build factitious fictions to win by a fraction.'
The frictions between factions produce more heat than light. But the Christian tradition also has a few truths that it carries - the ten commandments the golden rule and some others (what are the key pennants that we fly as our colors until the Nude Jerusalem?).
I think this places us somewhat above the fray. But we can also see in a film like Lincoln the necessity of the Republicans' attempts to deal with fractious Democrats clear back to the Civil War of which our contemporary politics remains affixed. These traditions are themselves affixed to European politics going back to the Crusades and even before that to the attempts to deal with Pilate and Herod and Pharoah. Democracy is not just Greek. It's also Roman and Christian. It attempts alignments within old established truths such as those Lutherans sought to settle with Rome and that Romans attempted to settle with Carthage.
Country Joe said he didn't know what we were fighting for in Vietnam. We were fighting for Christian freedoms for the Vietnamese. That's also what we were fighting for in the Civil War. We are fighting now for those freedoms for the unborn and for business owners to be free from Pharoah (BO).
Obama's group is now saying you have to hire a certain number of not only handicapped, and not only people of color and women, but you now have to sign on a bunch of criminals, if you want to stay in business. It's not a law yet, but they're trying to make it a law that you have to hire criminals if you want to stay in business. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/eeoc-federal-crime-convicts/2013/02/15/id/490605?s=al&promo_code=12791-1
criminals working for criminals
business is basically legalized crime isn't it bilking people deceiving people screwing people in the end getting away with maybe not murder but widespread harm business is a way of seeing the other guy as a competitor in this regard global business practices are pretty broad not to be simply understood in ahmuhrikun terms but a wide variety of techniques from radical/communal which works for the tribal people making sure everyone gets a share all the way to radical/individual models where dog basically eats dog hot dog ain't we havin' fun and i suppose then you'd have to include acts of terrorism as business methods little examples of how business is worked out in a global sense i mean they did call it the world trade center tit for tat global politics some tents are made of steel and glass
we stand on the edge of new abyss
everyone trying to tweek the world to get a piece of the pie and a peace in the plot of peace
fictionally speaking scientific judgements are tending more and more to the metaphysical and being pronounced with evangelical vehemence i fear the scientists will rise up and say we are the magisterium what we say you must do here's the science read it and weep and do what the scientists say
i worry about genetic and pharmocological manipulations of the people i worry about caving in to atheistic secularistic post modernistic avant-garde pretensions like the ted show has anyone watched that it is amazing they're rounding up all the voices of post post modern enlightenment and positing it as the people the experts being attuned to the real trials of managing the planet and they hold people out there to be prophets of the new medium such that a vocabularily inept bill gates gets a say and his bird brain catholic wife gets a say and any tom dick or harry with a phd or enough money gets to have authoritative status and nobody gets to say !!hey!! that was really very stupid what that phd said stupid like in elmer phud stupid i have a cold this is no phud today
i have to bring down pronouncement on the social evils of the day and i see this horrible and superficial interpretation of humanity being projected as the bright new thing the new hope for everyone and it is pathetic
someone related to me that the drones are monitored by young men in anonymous cubicles in whatever god forsaken neighborhood in and completely anonymous land who are encouraged to play war games that look cartoonish on the screen but are actually war drones being launched and activated nobody knows who is actually in charge of those things maybe some captain on a ship paying a computer gamer to hit Ctrl+ and return home through the woods where a tiger lurks with a nine iron
it's a business doing pleasure that's all i can say
the pigs and the goats will win out they are the most perseverent the pigs will make a home in the mud even radioactive mud and the goats will eat anything even radioactive plastic so they will live
anyone for radioactive steak tartar
the civil war was none too civil we are pretending now to fight a civil war genderbenderfendersenders are the frontline of offense because they are so offensive the other troops flank to the left or to the right depending on the battlefield strategies and then the extremists shout from the corners of their accepted territory everyone is fighting for scraps like rats on a bad day
the farmer has implanted silicon chips in the brains of his animals he farms from his computer station he controls everything on the farm he can even arrange to get paid for not farming and the animals are occasionaly being farmed out to laboratories for experiements in communication can we ever learn animal language will they ever learn our language...language scientists doing very important work...brainy people (well sort of) messing with brains...the brain people should mess only with their own brains...the brain is not the mind...i'm offended by brain science...something seems epistemologically retarded in it all
i'm at a loss for words
jh
Kirby, I read the article citing the Obama EEOC's push to extend what amounts to government-promoted quotas to convicted felons even further on the familiar "disparate impact" ploy. Of a piece with the Obama DOJ's crack-brained attempts to interfere with and to disallow sensible voter-ID laws in a number of states.
I see stu's dropped his absurd "argument from silence" nonsense (for the only time drone attacks were the focus of discussion at all before this thread I wasn't even blogging and had not read the exchanges till Feb 13th), though not without a parting (ineffectual) squib.
Truth is, although I tend accept Krauthammer's defence of the drone attacks, I have reservations about the extent and escalation of this programme (in opposition to which a number of libertarians and leftists agree). stu provided some pertinent (though as usual, partisan) points before he veered off into nonsensical talk . . . where Wittgenstein's "[w]ovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man schweigen" ("whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent") applies.
JADL
Thanks for the link, Stu. Yes, that's still how I see the whole issue of predator drones. I have nothing to add, even 5 years later.
WW
well no jh legit biz isn't per se holy but nae just raw-bone hobbesean beggar-yer-neighbor crime either . . . so make toothy kids' lemonade "jus'-fitty-sens, ma'am" stands at least no drone zones nae
but yah-vhole jh mind-is-what-the-brain-does brain science is an epistemological and conceptual outrage to the mind with you there
Obama's incentivizing crime!
Obama's EEOC's felons . . . detected, now the newest affected, connected, and protected class!
JADL
Now it's possible to see all the protected groups as criminals.
That's a neat link Stu found. Times flies like drone missiles. Interesting that Brett was in favor of drones and waived off the limitations. I was for Obama. I didn't thiink he could beat Mccain.
Kirby, et. al.,
I've been digging a bit on the Newsmax story in re: EEOC suit against G4S Systems. This was driven in large part by the sense that no "news" organization that has two intrastory links soliciting responses for an "urgent national poll" on the question "should ObamaCare be repealed" is likely to have a reality-based agenda.
The first shovelful turned over the Bovard article in the Wall Street Journal, but that's about as far as the trail leads. Google turns up plenty of echo chamber stories written in the past 24 hours that stop just short of plagarizing Bovard, but as for earlier references? Crickets. And this seems significant to me because I've found full texts of judicial decisions in two other discrimination cases at G4S (a.k.a., Wackenhut) in which the EEOC intervened from the same period.
But I've found some other sources that seem relevant, and portray EEOC policy quite differently from Bovard, c.f., EEOC Updates Policy on Criminal Background Checks, describing a policy change that took place last March. Some quotes:
The new rules call for employers to assess applicants on an individual basis rather than excluding everyone with a criminal record through a blanket policy. The guideline states that employers should not reject a candidate because of an arrest without a conviction, as "arrests are not proof of criminal conduct." The new guidance doesn’t prohibit the use of criminal background checks. Rather, it urges employers to consider the "nature of the crime, the time elapsed, and the nature of the job” both in writing a hiring policy and in making a specific hiring decision.
The adaption of this (current) policy was described in the same article as the result of "a bipartisan 4-1 vote."
Of particular relevance is the EEOC FAQ: EEOC: Questions and Answers About the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII.
So I'd advice reserving judgment for a few days. The Bovard article was published on-line on a Friday. It seems to me that there is good reason for skepticism -- the alleged case left no imprint on Google that I could discover, the EEOC intervenes in cases that involve individuals, but there was no named plaintiff, and the EEOC's description of it's policies differ radically from what Bovard claimed. Give the fact checkers a fair shot at it, and see if this is still on people's radar in a weeks time.
Good work Stu. The right will definitely play fast ones. That.said this does sound like Obama's mentality and Holder's. But let's see. If it were to pass it would be yet another wet blanket on employment.
Sir James,
My accusation of silence stands, but on reflection, I think I can clarify and narrow it a bit.
I was particularly torqued by your description of Obama "defying Congress and the Courts," in the first case for exercising his constitutional right to make recess appointments (together with a longstanding precedent for intrasession recess appointments), and in the second case for taking a position that was legally reasonable (and it was proof enough in this case that the appellate court took the case, with full vindication coming from their decision to overturn the contempt finding).
If you want to argue against intrasession recess appointments, you should have been doing so 8 years ago. To let Bush's use of these powers pass in silence, but describe Obama's use of the same in terms that are intentionally delegitimizing? It's crap, and deserves contempt. Laches, unclean hands. You have no moral standing on these issues, and it's your own fault.
But I do think I was unfair as regards drones. You've certainly took a fairly permissive view of Presidential powers in Bush's persecution of the war on terror, and even cite Yoo with approval. What I took as criticism of Obama's drone policy was really just tweaking me, and not really a criticism of Obama. I'm much more tolerant of a decision not to praise one's ideological enemies for doing things that you found praiseworthy in your ideological allies, than I am of attempts to blame Obama for following precendents that your silence served to confirm.
Kirby,
The more I think about it, the more skeptical I become of the Bovard story. The alleged prosecution took place in 2010, but this would have been under the old EEOC policy on criminal background checks which was adopted in 1987 (which would be during Reagan's second term).
The EEOC itself is an independent government agency -- it is not, e.g., a part of the Department of Justice, but has its own Commissioners, who are Presidential appointees subject to Senate confirmation. The following facts come from the wiki article on the EEOC: The acting chair the EEOC in 2010 was Stuart Ishimaru, who was confirmed as an EEOC commissioner in 2003, and presumably appointed by GWB.
Obama made three recess appointments to the EEOC in March 2010, and these appointments were confirmed and made permanent by the Senate on December 22, 2010. If the EEOC had intervened in a case in 2010 with the fact pattern that Bovard alleges, don't you think that would have blown up the confirmations?
Kirby,
I keep digging.
There's a 2010 story on Hot Air: EEOC: Employers can’t refuse to hire convicts. The Hot Air article is a curious piece of work. It cites the EEOC policy accurately, but reads way more into it than is actually there. But it doesn't mention any actual cases, just hypotheticals. Still, in all, it is striking to me how the basic argument of Bovard's article seems to recycle the arguments from the Morrissey Hot Air article.
Curiously, the Hot Air article has an update, in which it notes that the EEOC policy in question dates from 1985, contrary to the author's expectations.
But I also found that the EEOC did intervene in a case that revolved on discriminatory uses of criminal background checks, albeit against Pepsi, which resulted in a $3.1M settlement in January 2012: Pepsi to Pay $3.13 Million and Made Major Policy Changes to Resolve EEOC Finding of Nationwide Hiring Discrimination Against African Americans.
The main accusations seems to require a bit of unpacking. Pepsi used to deny employment to people who had been arrested and were awaiting trial. (As far as I can tell, Pepsi did not use arrests that did not result in filings of charges, or in which the defendant had been found innocent to exclude employment.) Pepsi would also deny employment to individuals who had been convicted of certain "minor offenses."
The Bovard article seems to conflate EEOC interventions, albeit in a way that selects for characteristics that collectively reinforce a narrative of unreasonable behavior on the part of the EEOC. Do we really care if the guy who mops the floor at a soft-drink plant has been arrested and is waiting trial smoking pot? Most folks won't. I don't. And while Wackenhut does indeed hire security guards to protect nuclear power stations, the 2010 case I found involved a medical center and gender discrimination.
They use Title VII as the legal precedent. Don't the findings of the EEOC have to be verified by a true court within the Judicial branch or do they have police powers of their own? There are so many rogue commissions! I wonder if it wouldn't be better for all if employers couldn't just hire who they liked on whatever basis solely with a thought to their bottom line. India has similar workplace protections for the Dalits (untouchables) and the Brahmin can no longer get into certain areas of Federal Employment there. Since we have not had an official caste system since at least 1865 this does not seem to be our problem. Doing something illegal at least puts a pall over one's character if it doesn't cast aspersions altogether. I'm against smoking of anything and wonder if it wouldnt be a reason not to hire someone. I hate the smell of cigarette or pot smoke. I also hate drinking. People who have extra desserts drive me nuts. I wonder too about people shave every day. I am also flummoxed by people who don't believe in God or have no church affiliation altogether. But obviously these are not as serious as rape convictions or have a conviction for armed robbery kidnapping or political assassination. If Pepsi is forced to hire bank robbers to drive their trucks or rapists to run Human Resources they might as well shut down and sell coke.
To regard a rape conviction as dispositive in the turning away of job applicants would seem to be not only protective of the company but also of the public it serves. The Catholics forgave and forgot molesting priests and now look. This will create a problematic class with no employment opportunities and a criminal mentality. But they can always sell coke rather than Pepsi in order to crack the market.
Thebidea of a permanent criminal underclass and what to do about it has created some interesting solutions. Australia for example. America was for people who wanted to escape religious restrictions. In Shakespeare's England it was against the law not to attend church. A few groups such as the Huguenots had sanction not to attend. Shakespeare was not on any roll of any church.
In a sense Americans fled England because of the Anglicans. Anglicans controlled the south. Puritans got the north.
It was illeegal to attend Puritan churches in England. Conventicles met in secret. Much as NAMBLA DOES HERE. Problems problems problems. Creating good laws and sticking with them is crucial. Drones and employment regulations are worthy discussion topics.
Few wish to ban dogs from the polity but if PETA insists they should have jobs Too then what?
Caligula's horse was a senator. Presumably PETA would be pleased if Obama's dog was a senator. But what if it complained that it was treated like a dog?
Is Amerikkka at the brink of Chapter IX because of overregulation? What about the eeconomy? To escape regulations companies go elsewhere and ship goods back from places that have no work place oversight. Is that fair?
Kirby,
Don't the findings of the EEOC have to be verified by a true court within the Judicial branch or do they have police powers of their own?
This part is weird. The EEOC does not have regulatory power, let alone judicial power. You read that right -- they cannot make regulations. But what they have done is to publish best practices and recommendations. And they do have investigator power and can intervene in lawsuits that involve employment discrimination, and there is evidently a tendency for courts to put the burden of proof for non-discrimination on the defendants if they haven't followed EEOC recommendations.
In practical terms, the threat of a lawsuit often results in negotiation and settlement without litigation, as happened with Pepsi.
Excellent sleuthing Stu. I'm grateful.
One other funny vision of a permanent underclass is the Escape from NY flick w/ Kurt Russell as Snake. They basically walled off NYC as unregenerate. There was still food and gasoline but this wasn't explained. Otherwise people lived unmolested by police. Although there were women I can't recall children. Lots of anomalies. I love that film but barely pay attention except for the fight scenes. That's another idea is to wall off an area and drop al the unredeemables inside. They used to use unmarked cemeteries for that idea. It's what happened in Les Miserables.
Equality is a magical ideal but has lots of surrealistic downsides.
I do think tue slaves had to be freed. Whether they had to be given good jobs and housing is another question. Ibwish the free market would work its magic via the invisible hand. We tend to get under the thumb of some faction.
Sir stu, you've delivered a vigorous and partisan brief for the EEOC's race-based, recidivism-denying guidelines for employers, but in the end it doesn't persuade this differing partisan.
Arguing in one case the for the independent status of the EEOC and in another for the partisan nature of the majority of another independent part of government like SCOTUS (e.g., as in your partisan commentaries on the Citizens United decision) doesn't persuade.
Individual cases (actual or hypothetical, and the EEOC's own website
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm
offers many of the latter variety) can be invoked as support on either side of the issue, but the "disparate impact" or recidivism-denying presumptions loom over employers in all cases. One actual court case (2007) invoked on the EEOC site concerned a felon employed but later terminated by a transit authority when it surfaced that decades before he'd been convicted of murder (III.B.1). What seemed interesting in the case for the EEOC concerned how the convicted murderer might have won his suit. At any rate, the "disparate impact" argument is a continuing source of mischief-making on the part of big government advocates (e.g., the late Sen Kennedy's daft and dangerous scheme to effect racially proportionate sentencing of criminals by the courts).
At any rate, the claim stands that the EEOC is in effect discouraging and severely restricting employers from making criminal background checks on prospective or actual employees. And by avoiding such background checks employers open themselves up to liability suits when workplace crimes are committed.
Kirby, while the EEOC doesn't have regulatory powers, its influence over courts and employers is undeniable.
JADL
Sir stu, re the recess appointments issue, what you left out in your invocation of the Wiki source in the case of equating Bush II's intrasession appointments with Obama's was this:
"[D]uring the last two years of the George W. Bush administration, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid prevented any further recess appointments. Bush promised not to make any during the August recess that year, but no agreement was reached for the two-week Thanksgiving break in November 2007. As a result, Reid did not allow adjournments of more than three days from then until the end of the Bush presidency by holding pro forma sessions."
JADL
JADL these are fine counterclaims. I was not aware of the nefarious activity of this rogue leftist outfit.
I've now had the chance to go over the EEOC page. I'm going to withhold judgement on this shadowy government agency. I still presume in favor of the invisible hand. I grant that some groups are more likely to be arrested. Is this necessarily a problem with the police? Couldn't it be a problem with certain groups? My students from Harlem inform me that murder is standard practice there for dealing with conflict. One kid said he thought more than half of black kids got murdered there. IF we then had to hire those not murdered but doing the killings, would that not incentivize murder? There are dangerous implications and second order problems with this form of oversight. It might overlook other problems and even multiply problems.
Sir James,
Sir stu, you've delivered a vigorous and partisan brief for the EEOC's race-based, recidivism-denying guidelines for employers, but in the end it doesn't persuade this differing partisan.
I have done no such thing. I've not advocated for or criticized the EEOC's guidelines, I've simply noted what they are without judgment, to note Bovard's mischaracterizations. I've also pointed out that Bovard's story of an EEOC enforcement action in 2010 against G4S Security Systems seems to be an invention, noting both the lack of a Google imprint of the event itself, and circumstantial evidence like the re-confirmation of Obama's nominees for the EEOC by unanimous consent in December 2010 after initial recess confirmations the preceding March.
Whether or not the EEOC guidelines on criminal background checks and hiring of convicts is reasonable is certainly a debate we could have, but it is not a debate we have had.
Arguing in one case the for the independent status of the EEOC and in another for the partisan nature of the majority of another independent part of government like SCOTUS (e.g., as in your partisan commentaries on the Citizens United decision) doesn't persuade.
I argued for the independence of the EEOC because the Bovard article and subsequent discussion has framed this as as Obama-led action. You raise the analogy of the Supreme Court. Would you characterize the Citizen's United decision as a product of the Obama Supreme Court? Of course not. It is a product of the Roberts Supreme Court. So too with the EEOC.
One actual court case (2007) invoked on the EEOC site concerned a felon employed but later terminated by a transit authority when it surfaced that decades before he'd been convicted of murder (III.B.1). What seemed interesting in the case for the EEOC concerned how the convicted murderer might have won his suit.
Ah, you refer here to the Bush EEOC. Right?
The EEOC enforcement actions we've been able to document (i.e., excluding Bovard's, which seems likely to be an invention) clearly fit into a historical pattern for that agency that has nothing to do who is serving as President. So I consider efforts to frame recent EEOC actions as reflecting on the current President as dishonest (e.g., in Bovard's case) or uninformed (e.g., in Kirby's).
Kirby, while the EEOC doesn't have regulatory powers, its influence over courts and employers is undeniable.
Yup.
Sir stu, you're correct to note my main quarrel is with the 2012 EEOC guidelines and the EEOC's pernicious use of the "disparate impact" presumption (after all, there's nothing in Title VII about protecting against adverse employment discrimination against criminals) and not the Bovard article.
But you opened the question with your quotation of a description of new EEOC policy and the comment that several critics of the EEOC were reading "way more into it than is actually there."
And yes, I see the EEOC's recent work as analogous to Obama-led actions on the part of his highly politicised DOJ or his NLRB.
At any rate, the court case in 2007 (which the plaintiff lost) the EEOC included in its guidelines published in April of 2012, after which there were a number of commentaries; so in answer to your pointed question, "Ah, you refer here to the Bush EEOC. Right?" is . . . wrong.
Kirby's comment that "some groups are more likely to be arrested. Is this necessarily a problem with the police [I'd add: "or the laws or the courts?"] Couldn't it be a problem with certain groups?" is apt.
The "disparate impact" presumption as applied by the current EEOC guidelines seems to me as dicey a basis for federal policy as "institutional racism" is for higher ed policy.
JADL
Kirby, I just managed a further slog through the EEOC guidelines' "bureaucratese" till threatened with terminal jaw-dropping stupor. Noted that stu referred to its "best practices and recommendations" without designating whether or not this was his opinion as well. Perhaps not, for he's set the question of the guidelines' soundness apart from his criticism of a few conservative critics' opinions of them.
Nevertheless, "bureaucratese" has its curious lapses, as in this first (of two) general "best practices" listed:
"VIII. Employer Best Practices
The following are examples of best practices for employers who are considering criminal record information when making employment decisions.
General
Eliminate policies or practices that exclude people from employment based on any criminal record."
Curious and ambiguous there the word "any?"
JADL
I see the Democratic Party as being behind this document. You have only to see who's in favorite of it here. Two Republicans against the document, and against this agency, and the Democrat for.
Has everybody seen Lincoln yet? It's quite good on the Democrats and on the Tammany Machine. Lincoln actually uses their enforcers to push the 13th Amendment.
I hope GM in particular goes to see it.
The Democrats make overt statements that skin color should determine preference.
It's quite revolting, substituting empirical factional thought for lofty principles. It's enough to make you throw up.
But here they go again, a hundred and fifty years later. It's still color of skin determining preference. It's revolting, and quite inane.
You have to put principles above demographics.
The laughable idea that convictions should be set aside and not considered when dealing with race (which should be the determining factor in terms of who gets a job) is just Tammany and the Confederates all over again.
The Democratic Party is still the same.
The Republicans are the party of merit, and universal equality.
Democrats are the party of violent faction insisting on me-first-ness for their in-group. Quite revolting.
Now they are finding criminals themselves to be part of their party. It's just plain criminal.
Stu insists this is a Republican thing but doesn't say whether or not he finds it revolting. I think merit shoiuld be the only criterion of who gets what. Merit on the basis of the employer's decisions.
I am not against nepotism. Everyone will be biased.
As long as you own the company you should decide who gets where in the company. If you place your idiot nephew in a high place and your company folds, too bad for you.
Government employment should not allow nepotism as the sole criterion, but employment in the private sector of course should.
Government should stay completely out of the private sector.
They just keep meddling and making everything worse.
I do think there should be universal rules (no slavery) but you can't prefer one faction over another especially on something so flimsy as skin color. It's obscene.
Lincoln said. Go see Lincoln everybody. We need to revisit that film, plus it is going to come up for the Academy Awards and win everything. At last a film that basically gets everything right. They did have 150 years to think it out, and make sure.
But it sets out principles instead of factional dumbness. The Democrats are the party of demographics, and demographic preference. Republicans the party of universal principles based on Euclid.
I see the Democratic Party as being behind this document. You have only to see who's in favorite of it here. Two Republicans against the document, and against this agency, and the Democrat for.
Has everybody seen Lincoln yet? It's quite good on the Democrats and on the Tammany Machine. Lincoln actually uses their enforcers to push the 13th Amendment.
I hope GM in particular goes to see it.
The Democrats make overt statements that skin color should determine preference.
It's quite revolting, substituting empirical factional thought for lofty principles. It's enough to make you throw up.
But here they go again, a hundred and fifty years later. It's still color of skin determining preference. It's revolting, and quite inane.
You have to put principles above demographics.
The laughable idea that convictions should be set aside and not considered when dealing with race (which should be the determining factor in terms of who gets a job) is just Tammany and the Confederates all over again.
The Democratic Party is still the same.
The Republicans are the party of merit, and universal equality.
Democrats are the party of violent faction insisting on me-first-ness for their in-group. Quite revolting.
Now they are finding criminals themselves to be part of their party. It's just plain criminal.
Stu insists this is a Republican thing but doesn't say whether or not he finds it revolting. I think merit shoiuld be the only criterion of who gets what. Merit on the basis of the employer's decisions.
I am not against nepotism. Everyone will be biased.
As long as you own the company you should decide who gets where in the company. If you place your idiot nephew in a high place and your company folds, too bad for you.
Government employment should not allow nepotism as the sole criterion, but employment in the private sector of course should.
Government should stay completely out of the private sector.
They just keep meddling and making everything worse.
I do think there should be universal rules (no slavery) but you can't prefer one faction over another especially on something so flimsy as skin color. It's obscene.
Lincoln said. Go see Lincoln everybody. We need to revisit that film, plus it is going to come up for the Academy Awards and win everything. At last a film that basically gets everything right. They did have 150 years to think it out, and make sure.
But it sets out principles instead of factional dumbness. The Democrats are the party of demographics, and demographic preference. Republicans the party of universal principles based on Euclid.
Sir James,
Sir stu, re the recess appointments issue, what you left out in your invocation of the Wiki source in the case of equating Bush II's intrasession appointments with Obama's was this:
"[D]uring the last two years of the George W. Bush administration, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid prevented any further recess appointments. Bush promised not to make any during the August recess that year, but no agreement was reached for the two-week Thanksgiving break in November 2007. As a result, Reid did not allow adjournments of more than three days from then until the end of the Bush presidency by holding pro forma sessions."
I was wondering when you'd finally figure that out :-).
But let's take this as given, that Obama's action in making a recess appointment during a pro-forma session of the Senate (intended to do no more than to prevent such appointments) is an escalation. And the technique of a pro-forma session to this end was first used by Harry Reid to forestall recess appointments that Bush might have made, and that Bush chafed at the pro-forma session, but chose not to challenge it. And that the Republicans opted to use Reid's precedent against him. I think these are all fair.
But what this analysis leaves out is the Republican's attempt at nullification of both the NLRB and the CFPB. The issue here is not that the particular appointees were problematic, it is that so far as the Senate minority is concerned the offices themselves are problematic.
What has happened here is that one escalation (nullification) has been met by another (viewing pro-forma sessions as not meeting the constitutional test).
Generally speaking, the courts have tried to stay out of this kind of tit-for-tat between the executive branch and the legislature, but that didn't happen this time. Undoubtedly this will end up in the Supreme Court, and I don't think any of us is prepared to predict with much certainty how they're likely to rule. Roberts in particular seems to be thinking about the legacy of the court, or essentially equivalenty, how the precedents that his court sets are likely to impact future administrations, which might well be Republican, and where the presenting questions might be quite differently.
Sir James & Kirby,
I think before attempting to qualify the 2012 changes to the EEOC policies regarding criminal background checks and the possibly disqualifying nature of a criminal record, it might be prudent to find out what those changes are.
After all, Sir James is building his case for the problem with these policies based on pre-2012 enforcement actions, and this isn't entirely unreasonable because the accounts of the pre-2012 policy seem very similar to the current policy. But this does deeply undercut his argument of deep changes in 2012.
Moreover, as the current EEOC FAQ makes clear, criminal background checks are not proscribed, nor are companies are enjoined against considering criminal records in making employment decisions. I think a fair metaphor here is with the language and intent of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which requires education in the "least restrictive environment." Sometimes the regular classroom is the least restrictive environment, but sometimes it is not.
Undoubtedly part of the thinking here is that convicted criminals are subject to incarceration and other penalties by the state, which it intends to be the totality of the consequences for their behavior. But the reality is often that individuals with criminal records are essentially barred from employment or profitable participation in the economy, leaving them few alternatives to a return to criminal behavior. The resulting recividism is to no one's benefit. We cannot in justice on one hand tell people who have served the penalty for their crimes that we now expect them to become productive members of society, while on the other barring all paths to such productivity. We want prisoners to behave well in prison, and early release programs attempt to create reasonable incentives for them to do so, but this only works if being "out" is seen as being better than being "in."
But there is a fairly compelling counter argument: nothing good can be expected from putting pedophiles in positions of authority over young people, nothing good can be expected from turning serial thieves into security guards or truck drivers. What it seems to me the EEOC is doing is arguing that any criminal background exclusion needs to be justified. Not every job is a position of high trust. If past criminality is indicative of particular weaknesses in character (and I think a reasonable argument can be made that they usually are), not every job is going to requires strength where that weakness is indicated.
I see the EEOC policy as trying to strike a balance here. Undeniably, others would argue for different balance point. Indeed, I might to. But I do agree that the pathway to rehabilitation needs to be a realistic and acheivable one.
As regards the particular partisan identifications that might be in play here, I think it's a lot less clear than you two seem to think it is. The EEOC is a bipartisan panel, and the 1987 statue and its 2012 modifications found bi-partisan support among the EEOC commissioners. Republicans as well as Democrats want prisons to be well-run, prisoners well-behaved, and ex-convicts to re-integrate into society in so far as possible.
I wonder if we should really foist convicts on companies. I grant that some people may have gone off the deep end once. Shooting someone can be a mistake. What the Unabomber did though I think would make him a liability for most companies in spite of very fine math skills. Who would want to share a cubicle with Ted even if would take somenpressure off the government? I don't want him iced down with current either. He really is such a strange case. Isolating our dangerously mentally and morally ill in penitentaries for life seems smart. In Les Mis you have Javert who does reenter society but Zola demonizes society because the writer is not well. Jesus says to a clown killer on an adjacent cross that he's a going to heaven thus rehabilitating him. One is always taking a certain risk. Would you hire Pilate or his wife? Hitler? OJ? Manson? Valerie Solanas? Nixon? Most of our presidents seem to be little more than criminals especially lately. I consider Obama a poor prospect for rehabilitation. A born liar. Bush Too. Effective in their own ways I wouldn't trust either one in a barn with a cow much less with a purse of any kind. Mindless spendthrifts with dubious claims to competence. The Founders such as Madison I'd trust a little bit. Most of our presidents were obviously mentally ill. Betsy Ross was a monomaniac with the flag. Ben Franklin was flying a kite in an electrical storm. Obvious signs of mental instability. Lincoln did ouija boardbtype stuff to talk with his dead kids. Reagan was a whack job. Carter was an ineffective sap. Roosevelt a mindless bully. I'd trust Coolidge and not Garfield. Garfield got himself shot and wasn't thinking when he wwas at his best. Pack of scoundrels. I'd hire Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or most top business people like Ross Perot. Washington or Grant were not stable businessmen. Would you hire Edgar Poe or Whitman or Dickinson or Faulkner? Poor prospects for rehabilitation abound. Carnegie sure. Bill Ayres belongs in prison. His wife too. Reinhold Niebuhr seems ok as do most pastors but they'd give the poor free sandwiches against company policy. Betty Crocker should crack down on their cracker asses and institute a few commandments. Would you hire Mosesnwho killed an Egyptian?
Sir stu, on recess appointments, I see you acknowledge the differences between the Bush and Obama appointments procedures and the respective federal appeals court apparently has as well in declaring (without dissent) the latter's (appointments during Senate pro-forma sessions) to be unconstitutional. I don't expect a reversal in SCOTUS, but we'll see, and if so, on what basis.
On the EEOC guidelines, much of what you say is reasonable from the standpoint of the released felon. Nevertheless, the EEOC's policy interferes with--by laying undue burdens on employers requiring criminal background checks--employers' responsibilities to provide their employees with a safe environment to work in and to protect their assets from property loss and from negligent hiring lawsuits (points you didn't address). That the EEOC justifies this interference on highly dubious racial "disparate impact" grounds is to me unwarranted and the EEOC should withdraw its April 2012 guidelines.
Furthermore, as I learned this morning, in an appropriations bill the House has already prohibited the EEOC from funding the enforcement of its new guidelines and the Senate Appropriations Committee report criticised the EEOC about the "EEOC’s plans to issue new guidance on the use of criminal and credit background checks in the employment context that may limit the ability of conscientious employers to hire with confidence and [may] create conflict with Federal and State laws."
And indeed, if ending so-called "blanket" exclusions of felons are what the EEOC aims at, then perhaps they should look closer to home. For
"federal law excludes certain felons from working as security screeners or otherwise having unescorted access to the secure areas of any airport and that there are equivalent requirements for federal law enforcement officers, child care workers in federal agencies or facilities, bank employees, and port workers. In other words, blanket exclusions based on the risk of repeated criminal behavior—exclusions that cause disparate impact—are legitimate when imposed by the federal government. However, these same exclusions are somehow suspect and discriminatory when imposed by private industry."
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/05/the-dangerous-impact-of-barring-criminal-background-checks
for some reason i recall this morning the event from my childhood when my brother and i hiked up to the mountain in our front yard literally in montana you can have mountains in your front yard and we came to the horse corral and there was these two cowboys with a bunch of chickens and i being curious wished to know what this was about well no sooner did i look and there was this chicken with it's head cut off running with blood spouting out it's neck and a cowboy with another by the legs setting it up on the choping block and whamo a vertible dance of headless chickens and flapping dying chickens and cackling chickens who seemed to know what was coming down these chickens bespoke a certain economy and i knew it i knew that somewhere somehow meals were being thought of anticipated gifts of chicken fresh off the block were being decided there was there a kettle of steaming water into which one of the cowboys began plunging the chickens the water turned pink then red and with ripping zeal and intention teh feathers were torn from the warm dead flesh of the chickens and the wet feathers were flitted out onto the ground for the warm wind to consider
maybe obama should turn the whitehouse lawn into a chicken run
seems like it's well protected against dogs and foxes
animal farm gone haywire
the laboratory manufactured species are claiming rights
widespread cultural sodomy ensues
jh
Sir James,
I see you acknowledge the differences between the Bush and Obama appointments procedures and the respective federal appeals court apparently has as well in declaring (without dissent) the latter's (appointments during Senate pro-forma sessions) to be unconstitutional.
I do not acknowledge that Obama's recess appointments during a pro forma session of the Senate are unconstitutional. I do acknowledge that they're an escalation. The question of constitutionality is working its way through the courts.
On the EEOC guidelines, much of what you say is reasonable from the standpoint of the released felon...
You're ignoring the societal stakin in proving pathways to re-integration of ex-cons. There are more than just two interested parties here, which complicates matters.
That the EEOC justifies this interference on highly dubious racial "disparate impact" grounds is to me unwarranted and the EEOC should withdraw its April 2012 guidelines.
It seems to me that the 2012 guidelines do not differ substantially from the 1987 guidelines, which we've lived with for a long time. I'd reserve judgment until we have a better understanding of what those changes are. As for racial impact, I suspect there is one, but it seems to me that the line in the sand that the EEOC in making the "disparate impact" argument revolves minor offenses (drug consumption, "resisting arrest" when there is no other charge involved, that sort of thing), not major felonies.
The EEOC seems to be making two separate arguments here (one based on re-integration of ex-convicts, one based on disparate racial impact), and it is best not to conflate them.
And indeed, if ending so-called "blanket" exclusions of felons are what the EEOC aims at, then perhaps they should look closer to home.
I think that the dismissing of the nuance in the EEOC guidelines and FAQ (which explicitly permit making exclusions based on proven, relevant criminal conduct) in favor of a highly strained interpretation that is intended to excite the base is chickenshit.
The exclusion you cite (no felons as security screeners) is reasonable. And I agree with the equity argument—government hiring practices should be subject to the same constraints as private hiring practices. Where I think you go off the rails is in arguing that there is not equity—the enforcement actions that I've been able to document that the EEOC has pursued over criminal backgrounds aren't of this character, as they don't involve positions of trust.
And this is why the Bovard anecdote is so important. Because it does make a claim about an enforcement action that would violate a reasonable notion of equity. But I have not been able to find a hint of substance behind that anecdote.
During the Clinton Administration, the use of targeted bombing strategies was supported by the argument that it was a way of using American power to effect outcomes without putting soldiers in harm's way. A way of avoiding boots on the ground, and all out shooting warfare.
Bush II had no such compunctions. He brought out the fife and drum and "support the troops" and began the Iraq invasion on a phony pretext. Meanwhile, drones dropped out of the nation's consciousness. When Obama arrived in office, drones were already being used, and the people in Defense were solidly behind their use, for tactical reasons. Obama became convinced that they could be effective tools, with much less collateral damage, and without the messy use of foot-soldiers.
The use of automated weaponry is controversial. It isn't "honorable" because men don't reaffirm anything by just pushing buttons and watching videos. War becomes a video-game, but there are still casualties. The question becomes not whether there will be collateral deaths and injuries, but whether it's less risky and costly to fight a war that way, rather than in the traditional way.
Drones are an expression of the new jack-off culture. They're computer games. Maybe at some point, countries could fight wars using just robots and automated machines. No one need die.
But in the real world, death and destruction is exactly what we want. In the real world, you hurt and kill and occupy real people, real territory. That's what war is. It's not "being nice" and fighting like gentlemen.
Torture is another expression of this. Waterboarding is ghoulish, but how different is it from shooting someone with a machine-gun? Less like war, or more?
Stu says:
"Because Al-Awlaki is a US citizen, and because we're not at war in Yemen, "war crime" is not the right charge. This is a US criminal matter, and the courts should not permit lawlessness under the guise of "national security interests." But they do, and have. So yes, I believe that Obama (or who ever authorized the killing) is guilty of murder and should be tried for it, as should Bush et. al., for their presumptive crimes. Part of the point here is that they should be permitted a vigorous defense, and if there are matters material to the defense that cannot be made public, then those portions of the trial should be private. My argument has never been for a show trial, but rather a proper, neutral, judicial review."
I wonder how Americans feel when a foreign national is killed in the U.S. by a that person's secret service? Isn't there a sense of indignation that happened on "our soil"? That may explain Pakistan's indignation.
Kirby:
"Plus, I don't like Obama, and don't trust anything he does. I don't want him to have any power at all. Since he's the president, at least I want some Constitutional locks on his power. He's doing everything he can to get rid of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
He's a madman."
I can understand disagreement, but obsession is something else. You've turned Obama into a projection of your florid nightmare.
I disliked Bush II because I thought he was incompetent, literally mentally challenged. He was incapable of formulating policy--which he delegated to others--primarily Cheney, apparently, who had a personal agenda diametrically opposed to the welfare of our country. It was a little like Rasputin and the Czar: absolute power guided by a devil.
What we have now is gridlock in Congress, so I suspect we'll see very little legislation, and whatever does pass will be small potatoes. For my part, I hope the Republicans DO stop Obama's immigration agenda, which I regard as catastrophic.
Sir stu, I didn't imply that you agreed with the federal appeals court's unanimous decision--you've already openly declared your own opinion. And you know that only a SCOTUS decision on the matter remains. I think the SCOTUS might well take up the appeals court ruling to establish precedent, seeing as how this issue concerns our constitution's preservation of a balance of powers in government.
On the EEOC's guidelines issue, I already acknowledged multiple interests--applicants, employers, other employees, and by implication, perhaps stockholders, insurance companies, and customers in private industry as well as taxpayers, etc. in the public sector--so if you wish to add "society," i.e., "everybody," OK. But I think your failures to acknowledge the burden on employers of compiling case-by-case data to justify their exclusions of prospective employees with criminal records as well as to acknowledge employers' liability in negligent hiring suits telling.
And again, I submit the EEOC's basis in racial "disparate impact" for interference in all employment cases unwarranted over-reach (thus it seems the EEOC itself conflates the two issues and has exceeded its mandate by so doing).
In fact, the article I found this morning gives evidence that the EEOC guidelines restricting the use of employers' criminal background checks on prospective employees might actually impede the hiring of racial minorities (sect. 4, "Unreasonable and Disconnected").
As for your claim about "dismissing of the nuance in the EEOC guidelines and FAQ [. . .] in favor of a highly strained interpretation that is intended to excite the base is chickenshit," given that the EEOC, according to the Heritage writer (a former counsel to the Asst Attorney General),
"would require employers to provide social science studies relating criminal conduct to subsequent work performance. Yet the EEOC itself says that studies assessing 'whether convictions are linked to future behaviors, traits, or conduct with workplace ramifications' are 'rare at the time of this' Guidance. So the EEOC is, in essence, asking employers to produce nonexistent studies on criminal behavior and job performance"
underestimates the intimidation factor on private industry employers of the EEOC's guidelines and is perhaps itself, well, what you said. . . .
JADL
Curtis,
I wonder how Americans feel when a foreign national is killed in the U.S. by a that person's secret service? Isn't there a sense of indignation that happened on "our soil"? That may explain Pakistan's indignation.
I think it's fair to say that the response varies.
One particular case of some note was the assassination of Orlando Letelier by agents of the Chilean government under Augusto Pinochet. This assassination took place in 1976, at a time when the US Government (especially the CIA) was supportive of Pinochet and his coup. As a result, the assassination met with virtual silence from the US, even though it was hardly quiet as assassinations go (car bombing, in DC, which also killed his American assistant). After a few regime changes here, it did briefly become a "cause" again, with some implications in terms of US-Chilean politics, but the trail had gone stone cold, and the issue was eventually mooted by the collapse of the Pinochet regime.
Another case of some note was the assassination of Ioan Culianu, which happened about 200 feet from where I'm now sitting, in a third-floor mens room at UC's Divinity School in 1991. Professor Culianu was a Professor of History, and someone who was publicly critical of the (communist) government of Ion Iliescu of Romania. It is widely believed that he was killed by the Romanian Securitate. The crime remains unsolved. It received considerable attention at the time, but the lack of clear proof as to the identity of the killer muted the US response.
Whereas, AFIAK, only the US is using Hellfire missles for targeted killings in Pakistan. Our approach is good at limiting (our) casualities, but it's hell on plausible deniability.
Sir James,
But I think your failures to acknowledge the burden on employers of compiling case-by-case data to justify their exclusions of prospective employees with criminal records as well as to acknowledge employers' liability in negligent hiring suits telling.
Look, I've done the employer bit. I get the difficulty, and the potential issues of liability. This is why, as I understand it, the EEOC permits employers to make criminal background checks (as long as they do so in ways that don't constitute bias, e.g., checking only black applicants), and to exclude candidates based on particular types of crimes (and an argument of increased liability seems pertinent).
The problem here isn't EEOC policies or actual enforcement decisions, it is the fevered imagination of the right at to what form these policies might take, or the enforcement actions might be, that is driving the discussion.
And again, I submit the EEOC's basis in racial "disparate impact" for interference in all employment cases unwarranted over-reach (thus it seems the EEOC itself conflates the two issues and has exceeded its mandate by so doing).
And again, I reject this argument. The EEOC's mandate is equal employment opportunity. Duh. If hiring practices seem intended, or demonstrably have the effect, of prejudice against a protected class, that's the EEOC's interest.
The routine use and unnuanced use of criminal background checks is racist in its effect. This is just math.
"would require employers to provide social science studies relating criminal conduct to subsequent work performance. Yet the EEOC itself says that studies assessing 'whether convictions are linked to future behaviors, traits, or conduct with workplace ramifications' are 'rare at the time of this' Guidance. So the EEOC is, in essence, asking employers to produce nonexistent studies on criminal behavior and job performance"
Rare does not equal non-existent or hard to find. There is a robust network of human resource departments. The existence of a single pertinent study sufficies, and there's plenty of motivation to do the requisite studies. This is at best a temporary issue, and quite likely not an issue at all.
Sir stu, your example of employers' checking only African-American applicants for criminal records seems to me a "red herring" (who would defend such a practice, least of all the Heritage writer I cited?) designed to soften resistance to the more controversial aspects of the recent EEOC guidelines.
"The problem here," well, could be the zealous left promoting the application of nowhere-everywhere "disparate impact" presumptions (based only on the higher arrest and conviction rates for certain minorities in which there is "no reliable evidence of racial bias in the criminal justice system’s handling of violent and non-violent offenses"), which, in the end, could have an adverse effect on minority hiring, as argued in the article I cited.
The new EEOC guidelines seem to me to *assume* racial prejudice in hiring (e.g., as regularly countered by tolerating prejudicial practises like de facto racial quotas, minority set-asides, and minority-only contract bids) place undue risks and burdens on employees' safety and on employers in conducting criminal background checks.
And claiming power over all employment decisions of those with prior criminal convictions (regardless of whether any adverse discrimination by race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, as stipulated in Title VII, is argued) seems to me a case of pernicious but now not uncommon government bureaucratic overrr-rrrreaching.
JADL
Sir James,
Sir stu, your example of employers' checking only African-American applicants for criminal records seems to me a "red herring" (who would defend such a practice, least of all the Heritage writer I cited?) designed to soften resistance to the more controversial aspects of the recent EEOC guidelines.
It isn't my example. It's based on a mild extrapolation of text from the EEOC Questions and Answers document. And it's really not that far from what seems to have transpired at Pepsi (i.e., excluding individuals from employment based on unproven allegations in their background checks).
But this does begin to get at EEOC's difficulty. The sort of behavior described above (e.g., only checking some applicants, or treating applicants with the same records differently because of race, color, etc., or treating unproven allegations as if they were fact) should be proscribed. I take it that you agree with that. So how then do you write employment guidelines to proscibe them without setting off the actively paranoid types who view every government regulation as a Rorschach test upon which they can project their insecurities?
Again, take away Bovard's anecdote, and there doesn't seem to be much there there. And it seems to me that Bovard's anecdote should be taken away.
Sir stu, did Pepsi actually check for criminal records of minority applicants while neglecting to check non-minority ones? If so, I'm inclined to agree, ceteris paribus, with your opinion on the Pepsi case (which I haven't read in detail, and Pepsi settled before a final decision). I do, however, think that if an applicant has been arrested pending trial, an employer may be allowed suspend an employment decision on the arrested applicant until the case has been decided.
Note too, that most of the outside evidence I brought into play in this discussion was supplied, not by the Bovard article in WSJ, but by Hans von Spakovsky's article on the Heritage Foundation site (as I supplied earlier, and now again):
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/05/the-dangerous-impact-of-barring-criminal-background-checks
(Spakovsky, again, was former counsel to the Asst US Attorney General, though his nomination to higher position by former Pres Bush was opposed by Senate Ds)
In addition, my opposition to the omnibus EEOC misuse of the "disparate impact" argument is supported by the long article on it ("The Dead End of 'Disparate Impact'") in the journal "National Affairs," by Amy Wax.
(Wax, JD, MD, is Prof of Law at UPenn)
(pt 1)
JADL
(pt 2)
From the conclusion of Wax’s article:
"The unfortunate reality is that too few minorities possess the qualifications and training needed to compete effectively for the jobs available in our economy. Disparate-impact litigation thus represents a costly, misplaced effort that fails to address the true causes of existing workplace imbalances and draws resources away from the initiatives needed to correct them.
As applied to race and employment, the disparate-impact rule should be repealed by Congress or abolished by the courts. The Supreme Court's vast expansion of the concept of discrimination in Griggs was a mistake: well intentioned, perhaps, but not well suited to realities of America's work force and society. The civil-rights laws should return to their original purpose, which was to eliminate double standards and adverse treatment targeted at disfavored groups. After all, Title VII, by its own terms, forbids discrimination "because of" race, gender, and other characteristics — and says nothing about eventual outcomes.
In the sphere of employment, the key questions are: 'Why do some people compete more effectively than others for jobs and social rewards?' and 'What can be done about it?' These questions are complicated and pressing, and the law of disparate impact does nothing to address them. It in fact only distracts us from finding urgently needed answers."
So while I may have taken my intitial "heads-up" from Kirby's citation of the Bovard article, I also did some digging in the EEOC site and several weightier sources.
JADL
(pt 3)
Source for the Wax article:
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-dead-end-of-disparate-impact
Sir James,
did Pepsi actually check for criminal records of minority applicants while neglecting to check non-minority ones?
I don't believe so. The issue (at least so far as I inferred from the EEOC announcement) was denying positions to people with arrests but not convictions.
I do, however, think that if an applicant has been arrested pending trial, an employer may be allowed suspend an employment decision on the arrested applicant until the case has been decided.
Suspending a hiring decision seems reasonable, subject to some common sense tests (e.g., would a conviction for that crime be disqualifying) and policies (e.g., if there is a queue of candidates waiting for positions, the person ought to gain the place in line associated with their application time, not just their acquittal time).
In re: Spakovsky, I've read many articles by conservatives that take the tack that, yeah, minorities aren't competing effectively, and yeah, the causes seem to be other than intrinsic merit (e.g., Spakovsky cites lack of qualifications and training), but that the particular mitigate du jour is a well-intentioned mistake.
Spare me the crocodile tears. Show me articles in which conservatives argue that concrete mitigations that are burdensome to anyone are appropriate, and I'll begin to entertain the notion that this is not merely piecemeal obstruction of all mitigation.
were'nt we talking about farm animals
Sir stu, I don't know what Wax's political opinions are (this is the first time I've encountered her work), but her credentials and cogent arguments are impressive.
Nevertheless, since she argues that the "disparate impact" rule should be scrapped because this form of "mitigation" is both self-defeating and counter to the language of Title VII (rightly interpreted a sound source of mitigation), she has to be yelled at and waved off, for some liberals must have "mitigation" (even if it's equality of result effected by de facto quotas, minority set-asides, minority-only contract bids, etc.), AKA "by any means necessary."
JADL
Without being able to see specific crimes and arrest rates and see the peoplebinvolved on both sidesnofbthe table and also see the denizensnof the EEOC it's impossible to determine the relative goodness of this commission of busybody morons. We shouldn't prejudge the isse I suppose but it's hard not to. The Dems will presume in favor of intervention on any aand every front always distrusting industry and trusting government and vice versa for the other party. If we had a year to really look at the Pepsi case I suspect we could come to an agreement between all parties at LS. If we could all shadow BO closely for two years I think we'd all agree who and what he was. Until then we read him through the sources we trust. I see him as a clueless communist cluck and busybody with zero independent thinking. He might as well be a moron. I think of him as a corrupt entity completely beholden to Tammany Hall tactics and strategies of bacon for votes. I see the business community as struggling to survive the shakedowns of communist gangsters who've infiltrated the government and use its prestige to shamelessly line their pockets and pay off enough voters to stay in power. Republicans want a smaller government because then its less thugs for them to contend with. Dems see business as seeking profits at their expense and want guv to control their greed. I see profit making as a holy activity sanctioned by the parable of the talents.
Tom Delay? Jack Abramoff?
Jesus. I take a weekend off and miss a pile of posts. Anyone want to do tl:dr time.
that was supposed to be "a tl;dr for me?" (too long; didn't read)
Kirby:
"I see the business community as struggling to survive"
I think it might be instructive for you to actually perceive business ethics from the inside out, instead of idealizing them from the outside.
Attending the board meetings of a few major multi-national corporations might be a revelation too.
Growing and maintaining large companies has never been about helping workers or communities or the general economy--those are goals big business has never shared. They may use those benefits as public relations themes, but they mean nothing to the bottom line.
If corporations could get rich by exploiting customers and workers and the environment, they would do exactly that. Which is precisely what they've always done.
Government shouldn't be in the business of providing for and promoting private business interests. Just as it shouldn't be promoting any particular religious interest. Government is about helping citizens, not businesses. It's about clarifying the interests of the electorate, seeing that its needs are met, and its safety and well-being are enhanced. Whenever business abuses the freedom that democracy provides, government must act, albeit reluctantly and with care.
i guess obama believes in brain science
does this seem threatening to republicans
how to resolve cultural neuralgia
that is a trick beyond technique
what about the exotic farm animals
i hear people in minnesota talking about alpacas buffalo ostriches even wild boars
we may have another boar war on our hands
what's this i hear
they're only cloning women
let us try to resist boorishness
you guys should be consultants to the supreme court
jh
Curtis, have you sat in the boardroom of a giant corporation?
Capitalism makes companies responsive to public perception in a way that other economies do not. Stalin had nothing to fear from the public. They had everything to fear from him. Once the public is on the state's teat, the state can treat them however they wish, as they control both the economy and the police powers. It's very important to keep these separate.
it would seem to me only because i have a tendency to observe ethers like public opinion and collective expressions of acceptance or discontent people seemed to hate gwshrub because of the ignoring of somewhat social sacrosanct boundaries he made the police state and the economy an imperative in the same breath he retreated from public view and wielded a sort hidden sword of lockeing down the lockes of ports of entry for economy reasons with huge increases in police patrols he also broke down the doors which protect individual privacy and he made police state rhetoric almost acceptable completely acceptable by some many many people climbed on board for a wild ride into natonalistic fervour and relentless conspicuous consumption
how many more of those widescreen tveez do you need ma'am o you like to watch cop shows in every room OK then alrighty then
companies change their iconography every 5 - 10 years and they remain somewhat inchoate until they bust open with profit and then they disappear into the chimeracle or is it chimerical i never know theatre of tax evasion wanton greed
and a constant overstating of their importance to the lapdog investors
american capitalism forces people to move about very quickly always with the impression that he she or they are doing something very important
remunerative slavery
a constant diversion into hollywoodesque mindscapes of false hope
wait
did i just write that
o well
drug companies rule everything now
time for your meds
co-operative farms in the manner of amish hutterite mennonite communities are socially egalitarian and usually somewhat profitable and good for the needy too
jh
The People are sovereign and big Pharma only wants to help them ease on down the road.
The interests of the public welfare, and of business--especially big business--are not the same.
Kirby's failure to understand this is a cause of his misperception of how capitalism works.
Big business has to have an interest in social welfare. Carnegie built libraries and Carnegie Hall, for example.
Communists often think the government will care about the private individual after the vote has been banned and their money has been taken away.
That's how it doesn't work.
Just read up on what Stalin did.
Two things protect the individual: the vote, and their money (because they "vote" with their money).
If a company gets a bad PR message going, people won't buy their products.
We need then three or four major things: freedom to speak or write, freedom to vote, and freedom to purchase what we like.
Communism bans all three.
The fourth thing is we need to have guns. Without that, we can't have the other three. The Soviet Union had very very strict anti-gun laws. (and yet they also had a very high murder rate.)
Confusion in the left about these items is rife. I am here to straighten all this out.
Kirby says:
"Big business has to have an interest in social welfare. Carnegie built libraries and Carnegie Hall, for example.
Communists often think the government will care about the private individual after the vote has been banned and their money has been taken away.
That's how it doesn't work.
Just read up on what Stalin did.
Two things protect the individual: the vote, and their money (because they "vote" with their money).
If a company gets a bad PR message going, people won't buy their products.
We need then three or four major things: freedom to speak or write, freedom to vote, and freedom to purchase what we like.
Communism bans all three.
The fourth thing is we need to have guns. Without that, we can't have the other three. The Soviet Union had very very strict anti-gun laws. (and yet they also had a very high murder rate.)
Confusion in the left about these items is rife. I am here to straighten all this out."
_______________
Kirby: I don't see you as either understanding business in its essence (it's a much more powerful tool and coercing phenomenon), or participating in it (as a college teacher). You stand uncertainly outside of commerce, and offer weak encouragements to its success.
In a capitalist democracy, we all share a desire to participate in the party. The problem is when economic power becomes too concentrated in a few nodes, and it pushes political power aside, or manipulates it against the interest of the people it's meant to serve.
Industry is great. American built. America thrived. America made the future.
That's no longer true. Why?
it isn't because of "government intrusion" or over-regulation or high taxes or unionization. It's because capital decided to exploit other employment markets, and to put investment dollars outside our economy. Otherwise, the post-war party might have continued a bit longer.
Carnegie was a union buster who exploited his workers relentlessly. The libraries were nice. But they didn't make up for his evils as a wicked industrialist.
Don't compare what Stalin and Kruschev did to American capitalism. There's no basis for comparison. Democracy DOESN'T ban rights. But rights can be abbreviated through bad law and the domination of capital.
When money controls the legislature and the public air waves and the organs of public opinion, the public's interest is at risk. Bad PR versus good PR. Businesses want good press, so they work to manipulate the truth to make it seem that reality is fantasy, and vice versa. Public relations isn't real politics.
You don't need a gun. I don't need a gun. If people have guns, they will use them, nearly always for the wrong reasons, and almost never in the service of safety or the defense of democracy or individual liberty. End of line.
Curtis, I think I can grant that it is not the overriding concern of an industry to correct social and environmental problems. But it is also not in their interest to foment or augment such problems.
On the other hand, socialist governments (which you seem to wish for)often do create industrial and social problems. The Soviet Union created a powerful new aristocracy when they concocted the Party. If you were in, you were like a made man in the Mafia.
It would almost be like being a founding member of the LANGUAGE school.
But in arrogating all power to themselves, and arguing that they alone had answers and anyone who spoke against deserved to rot in a rotten Gulag, the Soviet Union created tremendous problems. Those problems including environmental problems such as the dessication of the Aral Sea (once the fourth largest inland sea) and the disintegration of the Chernobyl nuclear plant.
You think that because industry cannot produce good, it must be produce bad. And that government is therefore the answer.
But big government taken to its extreme absurdity such as in the USSR, creates manifold disasters and then refuses to resolve them. Or even to acknowledge them.
I propose instead that government stay out of business except in terms of basic health regulations, and business stay out of government, except in an advisory capacity.
That's a thin line as they both should want the other to be at their best. They have to chek and balance one another.
When they become the same thing, as in socialism, or as in Obamacare, you have the worst of both worlds. We'll get skyrocketing costs with increasingly dwindling quality of medical care under Obama. He doesn't care as long as he gets to push his stupid face into everything he can while flashing his hubris in the night like a Cheshire cat.
Obama is a noodle head. If I weren't the only one saying this, it wouldn't seem so desperately important to me to reiterate it.
It is in government's interest to proliferate social problems and hook others on their goods. Food stamps have tripled under Obama. The national debt has doubled. Un employment has steadily risen.
As he collapsed and chases away industry, he feels he has even more of a role in the economy. The more people he owns, the better position he and his party is in.
It is always in the nature of an institution to want more, more, more! Why should Obama be any different? He promised change and he made things worse, almost hopeless. S & P will downgrade us again, in spite of Obama's threat to sue for calling him an empty suit with a fat slab of mustard cheese for a brain.
As he attempts to rectify this blow to his massive self-esteem, he will only multiply social issues instead of dealing with them. It's the equivalent of someone who attempts to disconnect the flashing red light on the instrument panel so he can pretend everything is ok.
It's how he operates: witness Benghazi.
At most this is a political problem raised by the right.
The debt is a political problem also raised by the right.
He sails right on: like Stalin, or like Pol Pot, or like Ceausescu, chewing up the scenery with his mindless antics. Does he at least replace divots as he golfs us into oblivion? Can he be bothered to stoop that low?
I love American industry as it is depicted in the paintings of Sheeler and I love the paradoxes of Escher, and the fascinating contraptions of the building craze of the twentieth century. Long live industry! Long live industriousness. I feel a ballad coming on.
Land of the Pilgrims' Pride
Land of Ivory and Tide,
From every mountain side,
Let industriousness ring!
My country tis of thee,
Sweet land of prosperity,
Where frackers drilled
Rocks and rills, where
Jed and Jethro had some thrills,
From Beverly Hills to the
Wooded kills of Maine,
From every mountain side,
Let industry sing!
Let government cork its face,
For it is such a disgrace,
Let the president shut up,
So the cash registers go ka-ching!
That cash we love! Let BO
Remember he's not the God we love,
Nor is he anything but a fake dove.
Let freedom sing! Let Oslo give
Him awards, so long as he lets
Us keep our rewards, from every
Bank and dive, let prosperity live.
Kirby:
I often have the feeling that you're arguing with someone else, or merely using the pretext of "replying" to get on your soap-box and rant about something unrelated to what I've said.
I didn't compare our government to the Soviet system between 1920 and 1980. That's your obsession, and it gets a little tiresome. There's nothing to suggest that the U.S. follows any of the policies or principles of the Soviet regime. Our systems were, and are, so much unalike that the contrast is more meaningful than the similarities. American democracy isn't equal to big government is equal to communism is equal to Soviet-style administration. You have to get over this, and speak more specifically and pertinently about policy.
I don't prefer socialist government. I prefer a government responsive to the needs and opinions of the electprate.
Economic interests in the U.S. command more power than our government. In fact they control government. Do you think this is a good thing? My guess is that Chevron, for instance, is more powerful than the Federal government. IOW, they can call the shots whenever it suits their interests. Can we do the same? Are our elected representatives as responsive to our needs and wishes as they are to Chevron's? The answer is obvious.
"As he collapsed and chases away industry, he feels he has even more of a role in the economy."
No, Obama didn't chase industry away. Industry--the corporations--made that decision on their own, long before Obama was even out of law school. Long before that even.
" . . . a fat slab of mustard cheese for a brain."
This is beginning to sound like Joseph Goebbels again, Kirby. Fomenting irrational hatred with crude metaphors like this is beneath you. You sound like a pimply little kid screaming for attention. This makes me wonder if you could be trusted to own a gun. The combination of emotional extremity and access to weaponry isn't a good mix.
"I love American industry as it is depicted in the paintings of Sheeler and I love the paradoxes of Escher, and the fascinating contraptions of the building craze of the twentieth century. Long live industry! Long live industriousness. I feel a ballad coming on. "
Kirby, why do you suppose that the plants that Sheeler photographed and painted were mothballed? That happened way back in the 1960's, long before Obama or any of the policies you claim to hate. American industry made these decisions to off-shore before you were out of your diapers. How do you suppose those decisions can be reversed?
Right now, China has a whole arm of its military devoted to hacking American computers to steal techno-secrets which will allow them to use our inventions and discoveries for their own benefit. We know this is going on, yet we grant China "most favored nation" status in our trade policy.
If you want to get mad about something, get mad about that. That's really important. More important than deer ticks and the drawings of M.C. Escher.
Kirby,
your poem is AWFUL!
curtis i wish to dispute you on the quality of kirby's poem this is a literary moment we can't afford to let pass us by in this intricate weave of lyric phenomena mr olson profoundly manages to elicit essential themes and in the same breath betrays himself as a... well... i won't say psychotic but i will say that he does not disparage that segment of the social cognitive warp and woof of rhetorical political pamblum plablum slapbdom flapdom blabdom as a matter of fact i suggest all the contributors to this literary vaccuum weigh in ever so lightly on the merits of this poem presented so willingly and gracefully why it hits us between the eyes like a two day old peanut butter and jelly sandwich is a matter for serious consideration i mean who else in the world of poetry manages to incorporate inane political positions failed attempts at slapstick humour internal rhyme and the occasional nod to pervasive american cultural dyspepsia if that is not too strong of a term...let's have a literary criticism moment we've never done that just rip a poem apart for the sake of literature this could be that moment let's all weigh the merits of kirby's literary effort...be that as it may
i mean we've had poetry contests all of which seem to end in utter ethereality perhaps we could have a poetry criticism contest
worm
kirby's poem is like a worm on the kitchen floor the first reaction is what is that doing there and then one looks closer and then asks what is it then looks a little closer and acknowledges the worminess of the situation and procedes diligently on to the dismal possibilities of most every day
sometimes i haven't the slightest understanding as to how this commentstream ends up being a roiling blur of cognitive mishmash and i look at myself and i say shit i've been talking with madmen again and i can only trust that social merit blunders in with a garbage can
no i think kirby's poem is a definite moment in poetry history there is a legacy in the stringing of words the way he does he has managed to mold the muck of life into a coherent statement that is far from important yet rather je nez c'est pas qua non plus ( which is french for _ -it is like some old cheezes )
we acknowledge kirby as prince poet for the moment
he tends to defy fashion
and takes delight in his own idiocy but these afflictions are harboured by almost all poets i can think of not one who manages some confrontation with the utter stupidity of what he might be or are doing is being nothing or a ghost
i am inclined to set these lyrics to music
kirby you should start a political poetry journal called
the men's room
long live lyrics
the profound lyrics of
eternal truths
served up with
hamhocks and greens
pineapple for dessert
one question remains
who is on first
jh
I thank JH for his qualified defense of my poem, but it's not a poem. It's a ballad. And thus is deliberately cheesy, like Obama's brain.
(Swiss cheese.)
I do think we have one point of possible agreement. I don't think we should trade any more with China.
I just think we should dump china in the Indian Ocean. That is, we should take everything Chinese, and dump it in the Indian Ocean. I don't know why I'm choosing the Indian Ocean.
But we have to dump all our China. Let's use tupperware and plastic forks made somewhere in America.
Let's get rid of all their toys. And let's get a president who will stop the trade imbalance with China instead of making up all this guff about automatic weapons. Only like 90 kids have lost their lives due to gun violence since Columbine. What is all this hysteria about automatic weapons? 90 kids out of what -- 30 million in the system at present.
I grant if someone hurt one of my kids I would wail about it for years.
But it's all a distraction from the real work cheese-brain should be doing which has to do with American jobs. Romney would not have been a lot better. But he might have been a higher quality of cheese. He might be a Brie (he speaketh the French).
But we absolutely need to dump all our China in the Indian Ocean. Or pile it up to the moon somewhere in Antarctica as some kind of sculpture. Some kind of Arman type of thang.
I don't hate the Chinese, but I do hate China. What's wrong with Tupperware? What's wrong with plastic forks? Let's have a picnic and I agree: let's get rid of the china.
I thank JH for his qualified defense of my poem, but it's not a poem. It's a ballad. And thus is deliberately cheesy, like Obama's brain.
(Swiss cheese.)
I do think we have one point of possible agreement. I don't think we should trade any more with China.
I just think we should dump china in the Indian Ocean. That is, we should take everything Chinese, and dump it in the Indian Ocean. I don't know why I'm choosing the Indian Ocean.
But we have to dump all our China. Let's use tupperware and plastic forks made somewhere in America.
Let's get rid of all their toys. And let's get a president who will stop the trade imbalance with China instead of making up all this guff about automatic weapons. Only like 90 kids have lost their lives due to gun violence since Columbine. What is all this hysteria about automatic weapons? 90 kids out of what -- 30 million in the system at present.
I grant if someone hurt one of my kids I would wail about it for years.
But it's all a distraction from the real work cheese-brain should be doing which has to do with American jobs. Romney would not have been a lot better. But he might have been a higher quality of cheese. He might be a Brie (he speaketh the French).
But we absolutely need to dump all our China in the Indian Ocean. Or pile it up to the moon somewhere in Antarctica as some kind of sculpture. Some kind of Arman type of thang.
I don't hate the Chinese, but I do hate China. What's wrong with Tupperware? What's wrong with plastic forks? Let's have a picnic and I agree: let's get rid of the china.
Insofar as guns go, Coitus, I don't have one. I had a BB gun when I was 12. I shot a chickadee and cried for three weeks.
I have no idea what I would want to shoot up these days if I had a gun. I saw a neat show on TV this morning (PBS) that said that most of our psychotic shooters are psychotics who want to be famous, and have no way to attain this except by popping all kinds of kids and thereby landing on the front page.
I'm famous enough.
I have five or so books, and have this lively little blog, and have a job.
It's people who are loners who fondle their guns and are psychotics who go ballistic.
I'm not a loner, have no gun (I have never fired a genuine bullet, and am 56 and have never hurt anyone in my entire life). Also, the true psychokillers are suicidal but want to take all kinds of people out with them.
You have your categories goofed up.
I want to be ninety and still writing monstrous awful poems. I want to write poems that almost defy the idea of taste!
And yet I also want to write beautiful poems that everyone can accept on their tea tables as marvelous little vessels of illuminating grace.
Ha ha!
There appears to be a controversy about where Tupperware is made. Some say it's made in China, some say in NC.
Mysteries abound. I suspect since it's not so easy to pin down it is made in China.
I do wish to have the return of jobs. I don't see why we can't just pass a law that says we can only trade with countries that are deemed FREE by a fair and balanced organization such as Fox News.
Kirby,
I don't see why we can't just pass a law that says we can only trade with countries that are deemed FREE by a fair and balanced organization such as Fox News
Because, if Fox News is the judge of such, we'd be proscribed from trading with ourselves.
freedomhouse.org has good ratings of free and not free.
Woodword on the sequestration. The left will turn on its own without hesitation and cannibalize.
The Left will struggle with the gun question, but on the budget, it's monolithic.
Post a Comment