HaroldWilson
1yr ago
North ignoring all of their agreements
This is just credulously swallowing Southern propaganda whole, on several counts. Apart from the trivial point of 'ignoring their agreements about what' (i.e. slavery), there are several things to say here. Firstly, as Potter the 'compromise' of 1850 was never really so - it was in fact an armistice, with both sides ready to press an advantage if they felt they had it. Nothing wrong with this, it's just politics, but the point is both sides acted fairly similarly. If we want to talk about ignoring agreements, what about Dred Scott, which Southerners were only too happy to celebrate, or the attempts to advance the Lecompton constitution, the latter of which made a mockery of democracy and any pretence at popular sovereignty.
The fact is that the highest priority of most of the South - or the planter elite that dominated politics at any rate - was the continuation of slavery, and 'constitutional' government important mostly insofar as it protected that institution.
There are so many relevant quotes here, but perhaps John W. Overall summed up the Southern mindset best.
"The people of the South," says a contemporary, "are not fighting for slavery, but for independence."
Let us look into this matter. It is an easy task, we think, to show up this new fangled heresy---a heresy calculated to do us no good, for it cannot deceive foreign statesmen nor peoples, nor mislead any one here nor in Yankeeland.
Our doctrine is this: WE ARE FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE THAT OUR GREAT AND NECESSARY DOMESTIC INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY SHALL BE PRESERVED, and for the preservation of other institutions of which slavery is the ground work.
HaroldWilson
1yr ago
I think you should read the declarations of secession.
Mississippi's makes it as clear as possible that all other issues were sideshows in comparison to the conflict over slavery.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
Hard to get more explicit than that.
HaroldWilson
1yr ago
Sure but that only gets us as far as the question 'whence culture'? There are obviously right-valence answers to this question which are the most prominent, but there are also progressive answers a la Ogbu, that African-American culture, if it has 'problems', is the product of their 'caste-like minority' status.
HaroldWilson
1yr ago
This is how news works. Obviously if this was actually a one-off freak occurrence then I agree it would be relatively unimportant, but it stands as a particularly stark example of a broader problem which actually is important - which is to say America's gun problem. You could make this criticism of almost any famous event. 9/11 has already been mentioned, but for a different example take the murder of Samuel Paty. That was only one man killed (plus the perpetrator), but it even became a famous event outside of France as it gained a symbolic relevance surrounding the general issues of Islamic extremism and integration.
HaroldWilson
1yr ago
controlled opposition/this is why we need "red flag" laws?
How is it controlled opposition to talk about policy responses which might actually improve things?
HaroldWilson
1yr ago
So I don’t think the anti-gun people are gonna win.
Is the implication here that everyone being armed would somehow improve the situation linked to in the tweet?
HaroldWilson
1yr ago
prepare for the gun control debate to be revved up full force tomorrow
As it should be? Deeply tragic event downstream of stupid policy choices should definitely result in discussion of those policy choices.
HaroldWilson
1yr ago
That's not actually what he said. He said it was glorifying the war fought in an effort to go on owning people, which it is surely is.
HaroldWilson
1yr ago
Scottish secession
British 'neoliberals', however you want to define them, mostly don't like Scottish independence. Blair, Cameron etc., but broadly there is no decisive left-right political valence to it. Unionists run the gamut of the British and Scottish political spectrum, from Andrew Neil to Brown to George Galloway.
One could point to slavery as the key point of contention, but that rule isn't exactly applied consistently:
The point isn't just the South wasn't entitled self-determination because of slavery - it's that there was nothing to secession except slavery. There was no other real grievance or basis for 'national feeling' than that institution.
HaroldWilson
1yr ago
editing for culture war.
Any particular examples?
HaroldWilson
1yr ago
"You’ve put yourself in a dangerous situation because you’ve done a foolish thing by flirting with that guy wearing that dress"
Because in the quoted example the woman hasn't done anything wrong, whereas in the Moran example it's implying that someone is exploiting a woman's drunkeness/mental illness to get them to do something they would not if they were thinking straight.
HaroldWilson
1yr ago
Maybe global popular reach but among those who should be his actual peers - specialist scholars - he is considered a bit of a lightweight no?
HaroldWilson
1yr ago
Hotels would presumably have to hire significantly more staff to handle this
This is really more than an aside. More work for their members seems like a pretty slam dunk argument for a union supporting a ballot initiative. See in a different vein;
Hotel industry spokespeople have said they believe the ballot measure is a negotiating tactic by the union, which is currently on a rolling strike against unionized hotels in Los Angeles.
HaroldWilson
1yr ago
I mean this comment rather proves his point. The vast majority of historians, sociologists, political scientists, musicians, writers, artists etc. etc. are all at least on the centre-left, but that's balanced out because the right demonstrates its sparkling creativity with... memes.
HaroldWilson
1yr ago
were so open-bordery
Maybe because they genuinely believe it is the best thing for Britain?
Aristocratic disdain for the native proles? Desire for cheaper servants? Regular cosmopolitan posturing?
This is so fucking boring, and at least an uncharitable as 'accusations of hating brown people' towards anti-migration politicians.
HaroldWilson
1yr ago
Consider the two qualifiers though. That takes to almost to 2100; we probably don't actually need to plan that far in advance, and in addition raising the cap would bring in more revenue.
It's a lot of money obviously and shouldn't be taken lightly, but Americans are relatively under-taxed compared to the rest of the developed world, and all in all with the mentioned qualifiers taken into account this isn't a massive crisis.
HaroldWilson
1yr ago
On reflection my comment was poorly written, but both Aymette and Buzzard cover collective rights no?
From Buzzard (Ringo);
That object could not have been to protect or redress by individual force, such rights as are merely private and individual, as has been already, it is believed, sufficiently shown: consequently, the object must have been to provide an additional security for the public liberty and the free institutions of the State, as no other important object is perceived, which the reservation of such right could have been designed to effect. Besides which, the language used appears to indicate, distinctly, that this, and this alone, was the object for which the article under consideration was adopted. And it is equally apparent, that a well regulated militia was considered by the people as the best security a free state could have, or at least, the best within their power to provide.
The question of arms useful for war is closely connected to this because if the purpose of the 2nd Amendment (or state equivalents) was collective then it would provide no protection for arms both not 'borne' in fact and not able to be borne under any circumstances.
Lysander Spooner
Indeed so, my point here is not to suggest that there is no equal tradition of, and evidence for, an individual right interpretation, merely to contest the point in the comment I replied to that more restrictive interpretations being deployed now are simply innovations that not even their proponents believe are consistent with the Constitution. While we are here though, see the reverse case from Benjamin Oliver, Rights of an American Citizen (1832);
The provision of the constitution, declaring the right of the people to keep and bear arms, &c., was probably intended to apply to the right of the people to bear arms for such purposes only, and not to prevent congress or the legislatures of the different states from enacting laws to prevent the citizens from always going armed. A different construction however has been given to it.
HaroldWilson
1yr ago
This isn't liberal media, this is simply the fact of voting patterns in the Senate.
my lying eyes?
Jesus this cliché should be banned. Code for 'I don't have to substantiate my views with any evdience'. As a wise man once said, if you cannot measure it, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind. Why should I accept your unevidenced reckonings over the relevant facts?
HaroldWilson
1yr ago
Raise the payroll cap, raise the payroll taxes, widen the tax base, privatize the system, none of it will matter.
Yes it will. Read the trustees report and stop being so hysterical.
HaroldWilson
1yr ago
Raise Payroll Taxes - “even a modest change, such as a gradual increase of 0.3 percentage points each for employees and employers (or less than $3 per week for an average earner), could close about one-fifth of the gap.”
Yes, this is extremely important. Whenever people discuss Social Security they often act like the funding shortfall some irresolvable apocalyptic problem when really a moderate increase in rates can close the gap. From the latest trustees report;
consider that for the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds to remain fully solvent throughout the 75-year projection period ending with 2097: (1) revenue would have to be increased by an amount equivalent to an immediate and permanent payroll tax rate increase of 3.44 percentage points to 15.84 percent
Considering the possibility you mention of raise the cap, the actual tax increase needed without touching benefits would be decidedly moderate. And the above figure is all the way to the end of the century!
Thier interests are aligned, and thus so are their policies.
But we can simply observe that they are not aligned on an enormous range of issues. Look at the voting relationships here in the 113th Congress. The most progressive Democrats have almost non-existent cross-over with moderate Republicans, even more so for 'ordinary' (i.e. not unusually moderate) 'business' Republicans. Sanders shared essentially no votes with any Republican except Collins and Murkowski (if I'm looking at the thing right) and it's pretty much the same story with every 'progressive' Senator, even some with no particular reputation as being on the left of the party. It's true of Feinstein, Schumer, Stabenow, Murphy etc. etc. Conversely, Sessions has almost no shared votes with pretty much any Democrat. I can't find the equivalent diagram for more recent years, but I see no reason to believe there has been any convergence between the 'patrician' wing of the Republicans and Democrats given that the trend up to then was in the opposite direction.
Edit: forgot to link to the thing; http://static.davidchouinard.com/congress/
This is how we got the Tea Party
So when you say this, remember that Tea Party Senators overwhelmingly voted with their patrician colleagues.
HaroldWilson
1yr ago
whilst changing the rules it contains to suit their purposes.
You seem to be implying that jurisprudence that takes a narrow view of the rights afforded under the 2nd amendment is somehow a recent innovation or reinterpretation, but the collective rights interpretation runs back for almost two centuries. See Aymette v. State of Tennessee (1840), which upheld a ban on the concealed carrying of weapons - in that particular case a knife. The key here was no just the militia but what 'bear arms' could reasonably be considered to include;
To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that no citizen of this State shall be compelled to bear arms provided he will pay an equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he had a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane. So that, with deference, we think the argument of the court in the case referred to, even upon the question it has debated, is defective and inconclusive.
See also State v. Buzzard (1842), City of Salina v. Blaskley (1905) and US v. Adams (1935).
HaroldWilson
1yr ago
name comes up more and more
... among a small number of the terminally online, perhaps.
HaroldWilson
1yr ago
My guess is even without his exaggerations they still make the loans at the same terms.
That's not really a sound basis for law. 'You can get away with misrepresenting your financial situation to creditors as long as you do pay it back and after the fact it's decided that it might not have made a great deal of difference on the original decision of those creditors' - why say that? Just don't lie.
Well it's both. Guns contribute to the murder problem (not just mass shootings but generally), but also to suicide, overall levels of violence etc.
Lazy and uncharitable. Even if you reject them, there are reasonable, and to my mind persuasive, genuine public safety rationale behind restricting gun ownership, so why not talk about those instead of navel-gazing about how much your own outgroup are out to get theirs'.
More options
Context Copy link