Last active
6 days, 7 hours ago
  • oisin commented on the blog post Greenpeace Took Things Too Far With the Nazca Lines Stunt

    2014-12-15 15:05:53View | Delete

    “The message, since it was visible from the sky, was intended to gain the attention of conference attendees.”

    Was the conference being held in the sky?

  • Yes, it’s particularly disgusting and horrifying that Reagan didn’t even make it into double digits in the poll.

  • This is undoubtedly the same third of the country that believes that the world was created 4000 years ago, that humans once rode dinosaurs around, that climate change is a hoax, that women can’t get pregnant from legitimate rape, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that there are death panels in Obamacare, and, well, I could go on for a while in this vein.

  • oisin commented on the blog post Moving to the Right Won’t Help Obamacare Politically

    2014-04-04 12:10:26View | Delete

    They could have a Lead Plan, sold with a warning that it might be toxic to your health. And maybe an Asbestos Plan, where you are covered as long as you don’t breathe.

  • oisin commented on the blog post Filmmakers Weigh In on Best Holiday Movies of All Time

    2013-12-24 14:51:20View | Delete

    Jean Renoir’s “Grand Illusion.”

  • oisin commented on the blog post Richard Posner’s Law and Economics in Action

    2013-10-13 12:43:05View | Delete

    “I’m not quite sure what the “methods” of economics are,. . . ”

    If you’re going to criticize something, it does help to know something about it.

  • If only we had politicians like this is in America.

  • oisin commented on the blog post Breaking: Amash Amendment Fails 205-217

    2013-07-24 16:01:24View | Delete

    She said “We lost,” so how could she be an Obot? She is a legal advisor to the ACLU, and she was in favor of the Amash amendment, as was her organization. That’s why she said “we lost!” (Do I need to point that out a third time?)

    When she says it’s as good as a win, she meant that for the first time, there was vocal opposition to the national security apparatus in Congress, and a serious debate on the issues, and only a very narrow win for those who are out to destroy the Fourth Amendment. She is looking on the bright side–things have come a long way since the Patriot Act and other pieces of constitution-shredding legislation passed Congress with a collective yawn.

    You can make your apology now.

  • Gang members, like terrorists, are Evil. Whenever they do anything, it’s because they are Evil. (And sometimes also because they hate our freedoms.) If you say these men are hunger striking because of their conditions in prison, you are on the side of Evil. These men are hunger striking because they are Evil, period.

  • Your title is a bit like saying, “it’s not the legs on the left side, but the legs on the right side, that hold up the table.” Obviously, it’s all four legs working together that hold up the table.

    If you had a 100% subsidy for everyone, then no mandate would be needed to ensure properly functioning markets, because there would be no sense in anyone not taking out insurance. But as long as this is not the case–and we know it is not the case with the law at hand–then some admixture of mandates will be necessary to stop healthy wealthy people from opting out. The subsidies and mandates will thus both be parts of the total causal explanation for the functioning of the markets.

  • KG: To convict BM on the aiding the enemy charge, is it enough that Manning knew that his leaks would in fact aid the enemy, or does the government have to show that he leaked *in order to* aid the enemy? It’s abundantly clear that the latter was not the case. It looks as though the argument is over the knowledge issue.

  • Harris-Perry is angry at Snowden for outing himself. She fantasizes about being the Adrian Lamo who turns Snowden in.

  • Melissa Harris-Perry is on record as arguing that left-wing criticism of Obama must be racist, because the left didn’t criticize Bill Clinton, and Obama is better than Clinton. Notice that both premises of that argument are false, and the conclusion would’t follow even if they were true. It’s not surprising that she failed to advance to full professor at Princeton. The only surprise is that she made it as far as she did.

    Harris-Perry has the intelligence of a spunky eight-year old girl who sees that this Snowden guy is angry at her Daddy B.O., so Ed must be a Bad Man. So little Melissa is going to use all the crayons in her box to draw ugly nasty pictures of Ed and make him look stupid and ridiculous. And then Daddy will smile on her and pat her on the head, and some school even crappier than Tulane will offer her a job as Double-Secret Top-Notch Professor of Unprincipled Loyalty to Daddy, and that will be a good day for all True Progressives who love Daddy best of all.

  • This is as clear a case of judicial activism as you are likely to see. The 15th Amendment explicitly gives Congress the authority to enact “appropriate measures” to secure minority voting rights (as pointed out by nixonclinbushbama in the comment right after yours). The Congress decided just seven years ago, in renewing the VRA, that these measures are appropriate. The essence of judicial activism is when the court substitutes its own judgments on detailed matters of policy for those of the Congress, with respect to a matter on which Congress clearly has the authority to legislate. That’s precisely what we have here.

    As for the business about the 10th amendment in the majority’s opinion, that only covers matters that are not explicitly assigned to Congress by the constitution. Since voting rights are explicitly assigned to Congress, the 10th amendment is a red herring.

    It’s not just our votes that don’t count, logic doesn’t count either with this court.

  • “. . . Justice Roberts who was joined by the three other conservative justices with Kennedy providing the winning vote.”

    This is an incorrect description, implying as it does that Kennedy is not himself a conservative. There are four justices to the left of Kennedy, and four to his right, so in that sense he is a swing vote. But it’s a fallacy to infer from this that Kennedy is some kind of moderate, By any reasonable historical standard, there is only one clearly moderate justice on the court–Stephen Breyer. There is only one solid liberal, Ruth Ginsburg. Sotomayor and Kagan are somewhere between liberal and moderately liberal, and it’s too early to say where they will end up. Meanwhile, on the right side of the spectrum, there is one moderately conservative justice, Kennedy, two solidly conservative ones, Roberts and Alito, and two neanderthal, knuckle-dragging fascist wingnuts, Scalia and Thomas.

  • Hard to believe that three justices of the Supreme Court actually voted against this decision. Is the word ‘antitrust’ even in their vocabularies?

  • There you have your press corps, folks. Naive and sanctimonious (e.g., Toobin’s touching faith in the goodness of government), narcissistic (Klein obviously gets off on the thought of the government thinking him important enough to spy on) and just plain dumb (Megan McArdle has the intelligence and literacy skills of an eight-year-old).

  • So Obama says all will be well as long as we trust “the people who are involved in these programs, [who] operate like professionals.”

    I guess our constitutional lawyer president has never heard John Adams’s remark that we have “a government of laws, and not of men.”

  • oisin commented on the blog post The Roundup for May 9, 2013

    2013-05-10 03:50:41View | Delete

    The debt issue will never go away, as long as there is anything left of the welfare state. Because the fiction that the debt is a terrible problem is the cloak that hides the right-wing attack on social problems.

  • Great story. I wonder if Israel will recall its ambassador to Google in protest.

  • Load More