Happy Birthday to George Takei, 75.
Quickly, to the good stuff:
1. As usual, it doesn't get any better than Ta-Nehisi Coates, this time on complaints about "Girls."
2. Scott Lemieux on ACA second-guessing.
3. Harry Enton on silly "rules" that were made to be broken.
4. And were DC Circuit Court Judge Janice Rogers Brown's recent "open-mic libertarian musings" a job application, as Dahlia Lithwick sees it? Good article, but there's another interpretation. She's about to turn 63, older than Roberts and Alito...she may be realizing that she's well past the age window that recent appointments to the Supremes have fit, and so it might as well be bombs away now.
George Takei is 75? The world is coming to an end. Here's a link to some Geogre Takei videos on YouTube.
ReplyDeleteAhhh
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=george+takei&oq=george+takei&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_nf=1&gs_l=youtube-psuggest.3..0l10.1469.4951.0.5242.12.11.0.3.3.0.296.1265.0j7j1.8.0.
What makes this paragraph so 'bombs away' Libertarian?
ReplyDelete"America’s cowboy capitalism was long ago disarmed by a democratic process increasingly dominated by powerful groups with economic interests antithetical to competitors and consumers."
The rich and connected craft legislation to advantage themselves. Liberals disagree with this?
"And the courts, from which the victims of burdensome regulation sought protection, have been negotiating the terms of surrender since the 1930s."
Regulations are compulsory. Governments do literally point guns at people to make them obey. Do liberals like Lithwick disagree?
"First the Supreme Court allowed state and local jurisdictions to regulate property, pursuant to their police powers, in the public interest, and to “adopt whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare.” Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 516 (1934)."
Do liberals not agree that seizing someone's house to hand the property to rich developers in order to raise taxes is heavy-handed?
"Then the Court relegated economic liberty to a lower echelon of constitutional protection than personal or political liberty, according restrictions on property rights only minimal review. United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152–53 (1938)."
Liberals absolutely agree with the idea that economic freedoms are much less important than, say, abortion rights.
"Finally, the Court abdicated its constitutional duty to protect economic rights completely, acknowledging that the only recourse for aggrieved property owners lies in the “democratic process.” Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97 (1979)."
I've heard and read liberals say that the only limits to Congress re. economics are those imposed by the limits of voter tolerance. This isn't even unusual. Is the problem her tone?
Coates is walking back on Zimmerman:
ReplyDeletehttp://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/04/trayvon-martin-update/256176/
But I don't understand the following in light of his acceptance of the wounds:
"What always shook me about this case, was not the belief that Zimmerman ruthlessly slaughtered a 17-year old child, but the act of putting myself in that child's place, and seeing how I just as easily (could) have ended making a decision to defend myself."
How is it considered 'defending myself' to deck a man, mount him, and start slamming his head into concrete? If I feared some guy enough to attack him, I wouldn't hang around to Finish Him! Sensei Kreese-style.