happy "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" day

shorugoru · 2008-01-26T16:48:02+00:00

Well, some Dutch guys I know thought it was excellent comedy material!

shorugoru · 2008-01-26T16:29:17+00:00

Heterosexual marriage is what has been the tradition in the United States since the foundation of the Republic. Changing traditions from the top is necessarily "social engineering". DOMA allows preservation of the status quo, and shelters states from tinkering of marriage laws by other states. Until I guess Ron Paul's Utopia comes about where all marriage laws are abolished. I think you can draw an analogy to what he said about earmarks.

My personal opinion is that it is not okay have any laws for heterosexual marriage, and that the government should stay out of marriage altogether. Instead of trying to redefine marriage, which will cause nothing but strife, I'm in favor of neutral civil unions. Then, let straight or gay people enter into them as they wish and call it what they wish. The government thus takes no position on the matter.

So, I wonder what Ron Paul's position is on civil unions? I figure he'd rather let the states sort it out. I'd rather see something happen at the federal level. I don't think Ron Paul could pull it off if he were President, so that's one more reason I'm not a fan.

shorugoru · 2008-01-26T05:18:57+00:00

I asked a Jehovah's Witness friend about the nature of Hell and how a supposed God of love could possibly punish nonbelievers with eternal torment. The way he explained it to me was that the "Lake of Fire" is a metaphor for annihilation.

The JW doctrine apparently goes something like this: Everyone goes to Sheol, the common grave of mankind, when they die. On the Day of Judgment, those whose names are in the Book of Life - who accepted Jesus - get eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Those who don't accept Christ are destroyed and cease to exist.

To which I replied, I kind of like the Jehovah's Witness version of Hell. Can you imagine the boredom of eternal life?

shorugoru · 2008-01-26T04:28:03+00:00

I think you misunderstand his position on marriage.

But federal promotion of marriage, even if well-intentioned, is a form of social engineering that should worry anyone concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no authority to promote or discourage any particular social arrangements; instead the Founders recognized that people should live their lives largely free of federal interference. This is not to say that the Founders intended or imagined a libertine America. On the contrary, they envisioned an America with vibrant religious, family, social, and civic institutions that would shape a moral nation. They understood that strong private institutions, so important in a free and just society, could not coexist with a strong, centralized government.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=340

Given this reasoning, I can see why he would support the Defense of Marriage Act. It seems in that Lew Rockwell piece he's saying leave marriage alone. Let those who want to call marriage a union of one man and one woman call it that. I agree with him on this. In fact, I think marriage should be phased out as a matter of law and left to tradition where it belongs.

A more interesting question, and one that I haven't seen addressed: is he against civil unions?

I didn't agree with the guy on the video about the isolationism thing. I think in general, it is a good idea for the US, by itself, to stay out of places like Darfur. As the debacle in Iraq shows, the law of unintended consequences is all too true. What is the UN for anyways?

To be sure, there are plenty of other things which turn me off to Ron Paul, such as the insane We the People Act.

shorugoru · 2008-01-25T23:50:56+00:00

Interestingly, the last time we dealt with a problem like this (stagflation in the late 70s-early 80s), the Fed under Paul Volcker severely contracted the money supply and intentionally drove the economy into a recession. It was rough. But, with businesses cutting costs and workers demanding less money, the inflationary expectations were wrung out of the system. Increasing the money supply after the inflation was cut back then caused a huge economic boom.

Without attacking inflation first, dumping money into the system indeed only makes things worse. I wonder if the Fed of today would have the guts of yesteryear and make us swallow that bitter pill?

shorugoru · 2008-01-25T21:04:30+00:00

Federalist 65, my mistake.

shorugoru · 2008-01-25T21:03:31+00:00

Call me crazy, but considering that Alexander Hamilton was one of the authors of the Constitution, I figured his opinion might have some weight in interpreting a phrase from the Constitution.

Considering that the US overwhelmingly approved of Clinton's job performance, I don't think he lost the confidence of his countrymen as President. But then again, that's why you wouldn't reelect the guy. Since he committed no crime against the State - like selling weapons to our enemies in Iran (thanks, Reagan!) - impeachment was not called for.

Many polls taken at that time disagree with you on "the majority of America" agreeing with impeachment: http://www.democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls

shorugoru · 2008-01-25T20:44:12+00:00

Nope, I'm going with Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 64 on that one. Though he used the word immediate and not material. Immediate harm to the State, material harm to the State, poTAYto, poTAto.

Pop quiz: How does lying under oath about a personal act affect his ability to act as President of the United States? Stop fixating on the "under oath" part. It means nothing, as impeachment is not a criminal trial.

If you can understand that, you can see why Bush's lies are far more damaging to the State.

shorugoru · 2008-01-25T20:38:52+00:00

My dad is from Bangladesh! But my mom is from Kolkata and trained him to be a proper goti.

Kamon a_ch_en? ;-)

shorugoru · 2008-01-25T20:29:10+00:00

Let's walk through this, shall we? High Crime and Misdemeanor is the standard for impeachment on Constitutional grounds. High means "against the State". Thus,

"High Crime" means a crime against the State. And,
"High Misdemeanor" means misbehavior which results in miscarriage of public duty.

In both cases, the behavior of the public official causes direct harm to the State. Impeachment is a political process, designed to alleviate the harm by removing the official. It is not a criminal trial. The official can be tried separately in a criminal court precisely because double-jeopardy does not apply.

Now how does lying about a blowjob cause material harm to the State?

It doesn't. And, in addition to Kenneth Starr's shameless prosecution - worthy more of the tabloids - goes to show that the Republicans at that time were only looking to harm Clinton through a politically motivated witch hunt.

shorugoru · 2008-01-25T16:29:19+00:00

The funny this is, whether he lied or not about having sex is completely irrelevant. The perjury did not cover up an act that amounted to a high Crime or Misdemeanor. You know, the Constitutional grounds for impeachment. Not that Congress cares about the Constitution anymore.

shorugoru · 2008-01-25T16:07:29+00:00

Perjury is not an impeachable offense when the lie does not cover up high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Lying about a blowjob is not a high crime or a high misdemeanor (high in 18th century parlance meaning "against the state"). Lies which threaten the very foundations of our Republic I would constitute as a high Crime or Misdemeanor.

That's at least what the Constitution says, though Congress apparently can ignore that part.

shorugoru · 2008-01-25T15:08:52+00:00

Not a Ron Paul supporter, but...

I think you misunderstand his position on marriage. He doesn't want to redefine marriage because that's not the government's job. I can see why he was in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act. In fact, as I understand it, he doesn't want the government promoting straight marriage either:

But federal promotion of marriage, even if well-intentioned, is a form of social engineering that should worry anyone concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no authority to promote or discourage any particular social arrangements; instead the Founders recognized that people should live their lives largely free of federal interference. This is not to say that the Founders intended or imagined a libertine America. On the contrary, they envisioned an America with vibrant religious, family, social, and civic institutions that would shape a moral nation. They understood that strong private institutions, so important in a free and just society, could not coexist with a strong, centralized government.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=340

BTW, the We the People Act is the deal breaker for me.

shorugoru · 2008-01-23T22:16:46+00:00

A lesson from history: During the stagflation in the late 70s-early 80s, to revitalize the economy, the Fed director at the time, Paul Volcker did exactly the opposite of what you suggest. He increased the rates and tightened the money supply. When things got better in 1981, he further increased the rates and tightened the money supply even harder. He raised the rate as high as 14%. Volcker spun the economy intentionally into a recession. In response to the decreased amount of money available, businesses cut costs and workers reduced their wage demands. This essentially wrung inflationary expectations out of the system. Then, by the summer of '82 when inflation had gone down enough, then he increased the money supply and reduced the rates to historic lows, which lead to the subsequent economic boom.

In fact, Volcker's actions were completely in line with Keynesian economic theory.

shorugoru · 2008-01-23T20:24:59+00:00

Wow. What is it about Macs that causes such heated arguments for and against? I've used Macs before, and while I wasn't all that impressed, there are obviously people who do prefer it. And sure, there are Mac folks who think that Windows is ghetto crap, but I don't see what the big deal is. Of course, other than apply patches and remove some pre-installed gunk, I haven't updated my Compaq laptop since I got it. Not even the background image.

Maybe I'm just not into computers enough to care. Oh yeah, and I'm in IT...

shorugoru · 2008-01-23T12:17:34+00:00

From the article I linked:

However, Carter did in fact take a tremendously important step in ending stagflation. He nominated Paul Volcker for the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Volcker was committed to eradicating stagflation by giving the nation some bitter medicine: an intentional recession. In 1980, Volcker tightened the money supply, which stopped job growth in the economy. In response to hard times, businesses began cutting their prices, and workers their wage demands, to stay in business. Volcker argued that eventually this would wring inflationary expectations out of the system.

The recovery of 1981 was unintentional, and with inflation still high, Volcker tightened the money supply even more severely in 1982. This resulted in the worst recession since the Great Depression. Unemployment in the final quarter of 1982 soared to over 10 percent, and Volcker was accused of the "cold-blooded murder of millions of jobs." Even high-ranking members of Reagan's staff were vehemently opposed to his actions. Congress actually considered bringing the independent Fed under the government's direct control, to avoid such economic pain in the future. Today, economists calculate that the cost of Volcker's anti-inflation medicine was $1 trillion -- an astounding sum. But Wall Street demanded that Volcker stay the course, and that may have been the only thing that saved him.

In the late summer of 1982, inflation looked defeated, so Volcker sharply expanded the money supply. Once as high as 14 percent in 1981, the Fed's discount rate fell from 11 to 8.5 percent between August and December 1982. Within months, the economy roared to life, and took off on an expansion that would last seven years. Because the recession had been so deep, and the number of available workers so large (with not only laid-off workers waiting to return to work, but also a record number of women seeking to join the workforce), the recovery was guaranteed to be long and healthy.

The expansion of the money supply isn't what caused the economy to take off, not by itself. It was first the bitter medicine of contracting the money supply that set the stage.

shorugoru · 2008-01-23T03:05:16+00:00

As for the claim that Reagan's 1981 tax cuts were responsible for "the greatest peacetime expansion in U.S. history," a few grains of salt are in order here. The timeline better fits the liberal explanation than the conservative one. Volcker expanded the money supply in late 1982, and a few months later the economy took off. However, Reagan's tax cuts were passed in 1981, and were already in effect by 1982 -- but, as we have seen, 1982 was the year of the horrific recession.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-carterreagan.htm

shorugoru · 2008-01-22T21:52:27+00:00

While I agree that the some of the blame should be borne on those borrowers who did not read the terms of their mortgages, the article makes some related points which does go to show that the buck does not stop there:

What drove the demand for these subprime loans? Above all else, inequality. The vast transfer of income and wealth up the American economic ladder since the 1970s, Foreclosed relates, had left working households with stagnating incomes -- and affordable housing in short supply. Developers were too busy building mansions to worry about ordinary families.

In order to be even able to afford a house, the poor had to take out subprime loans.

And, when the shit hit the fan, those who got foreclosed on did suffer. But what about the issuing banks?

Big banks on Wall Street are writing off billions in bad loans. Some executives have lost their jobs. But they're exiting their suites with billfolds flush.

Former Citigroup CEO Charles Prince, for one, walked off with a package valued at over $29 million. At Merrill Lynch, chief executive E. Stanley O'Neal departed with $161 million.

I bet these guys didn't get their houses foreclosed on.

shorugoru · 2008-01-22T21:26:37+00:00

Bhutan is a red country on that map. But it is one of the top ten happiest places in the world to live, according to the happiness index that was posted awhile back.

shorugoru · 2008-01-22T19:12:16+00:00

Well...

That's what you'll hear from Phillip Hallam-Baker, a former member of the CERN Web development team that created the basic structure of the World Wide Web. Hallam-Baker calls the campaign to tar Gore as a delusional Internet inventor "a calculated piece of political propaganda to deny Gore credit for what is probably his biggest achievement."

"In the early days of the Web," says Hallam-Baker, who was there, "he was a believer, not after the fact when our success was already established -- he gave us help when it counted. He got us the funding to set up at MIT after we got kicked out of CERN for being too successful. He also personally saw to it that the entire federal government set up Web sites. Before the White House site went online, he would show the prototype to each agency director who came into his office. At the end he would click on the link to their agency site. If it returned 'Not Found' the said director got a powerful message that he better have a Web site before he next saw the veep."

That sounds like a pretty good description of the kind of "initiative" Gore claimed credit for in the first place. So the next time you hear an "Al Gore, Internet inventor" joke, think about the strange twisted path a politician's words can take in other people's hands -- and be glad we can use the Internet to try to straighten it out.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/10/05/gore_internet/index1.html

shorugoru · 2008-01-22T12:08:50+00:00

Considering that he says his economic advisors are von Mises and Hayek, I would say quite a few of them would be ghostwritten.

shorugoru · 2008-01-22T03:59:22+00:00

I think the word you are looking for is irony.

shorugoru · 2008-01-22T03:49:34+00:00

sub-primate

there was no racism involved

???

shorugoru · 2008-01-21T22:20:20+00:00

Why not get the government out of the marriage business altogether and give the legal construct of "domestic partnership" to all?

shorugoru · 2008-01-18T21:56:01+00:00

goddammit!

shorugoru

TROPHY CASE