TomAiello

I love your posting style.

I'm a huge Heinlein fan, so don't get me wrong here, but I think that Heinlein is wrong about restricting the franchise. A far better solution is to create a universal franchise, but absolutely limit the powers that are exercised by the government. I once read a Heinlein essay where he called this concept "Constitutional Tyranny," meaning that the majority will was an absolute tyrant, but it was strictly limited in it's area of influence by the underlying social contract (he also theorized placing the limited power of government in one person, then having elections for that one person). The real key to avoiding the "death of bread and circuses" is to restrict the powers of government (with no way to broaden them)--not to restrict the franchise. I think this lesson was taken to heart by the drafters of the US Constitution--it's unfortunate that we've managed to undo their wisdom by creating giant loopholes to enlarge government power into areas that are clearly forbidden to it. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yes, of course. Why just today I made my daughter a crown from a cracker box and some aluminum foil. I'm grooming her to assume the throne of England after we invade.

I was unaware of the difference between business and residential ownership change rates. Can you point me at a source for that? Prop 13 is a generally anti-tax bit of law. The two halves that create deficit spending are spending more than you earn, and earning less than you spend. In general, a reluctance to raise taxes combined with a desire to dish out patronage results in deficit spending. Unfortunately, low taxes are almost (but not quite, I think) as politically popular as patronage spending. Fiscal irresponsibility doesn't really have a party. Although the Republicans tend to give it more lip service, the truth is that you're as likely to see fiscal responsibility on either side. Reagan, a Republican icon, was the virtual creator of deficit spending. McCain, the latest Republican standard bearer, is a deficit hawk, going so far as to vote against tax cuts (which he knew would be massively unpopular) that weren't balanced by spending cuts. Obama appears bent on deficit spending us into oblivion, while Clinton, the guy the right loves to hate (and who the left appears intent on forgetting as fast as they can) was the most fiscally responsible president of the modern era. And while we're talking about California, let's not forget that the most fiscally prudent state executive in modern history was Governor Moonbeam, practically a poster child for the "loony left" because of other issues. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Or are smaller. Which is most likely, given that California has the largest state government. . It also has the largest state population. A per-capita comparison would be more useful. California is ranked 12th in per capita spending. Source. I don't have any numbers (I'd love to see them if someone else does), but anecdotally, the majority of flight from California appears to be headed toward the Southwest and the Mountain West, where most states have much lower per capita spending (Idaho 38th, Utah 34th, Nevada , Colorado 45th, Arizona 41st, Oregon 24th, Washington 19th but New Mexico 7th and Wyoming 2nd) -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

That doesn't mean there's no relation. Reagan pretty much did invent deficit spending. But it's a stunningly popular political tool--you get to reap the political benefits of dispensing the patronage, and then leave the tab to your successor(s) to pay, making it a favored tactic of many politicians (of all stripes). The obvious relation is that more spending means more deficit spending, because in modern American politics, the will to actually raise taxes to levels adequate to fund spending is non-existent, and the will to cut spending to reach the level of tax funding available is also non-existent. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Or are smaller. Which is most likely, given that California has the largest state government. Although, perhaps surprisingly, it seems that the smaller they are, the better they work, in most cases. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Do you think the taxes the royals pay comes anywhere close to covering the government costs of keeping the royals? I seriously doubt it. I think that it might, if you consider the massive legal expense (and potential asset loss) of trying to disentangle the government's property from that of the royal family. I'm not sure what the actual legal standing is right now, but there was a time when the monarch actually owned every bit of government property personally. I bet the current system would look like a pretty good compromise if it came down to having to reimburse the Queen for the use of "her" navy, for example. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'm not saying it's not so, because I don't really know what's going on with each Senator, but are you sure? I remember when I was a 15 year old high school kid visiting DC, the only Senator who wasn't too busy to sit and have lunch and chat with us was Max Baucus. He seemed very approachable on that day 20 years ago. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Exactly. It's insane to think: "well, it's ok to violate people's rights, as long as we violate everyone's rights equally..." -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

So, the end justifies the means? If we'd simply killed every german, that would have worked, too, wouldn't it? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Right. Because after WWI, when no one occupied and rebuilt it, Germany definitely looked a lot like a Mad Max movie. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'm not convinced that they couldn't take care of themselves and sort things out. More importantly, I don't really care if they'd had some bloodshed along the way. That's their business--not mine. People die all over the world, in a whole lot of different countries, for a variety of reasons, every day. That's not sufficient justification to invade those countries and "improve" them. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Why do you think they would have gone to violence and anarchy? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yes. People have a right to self-determination. Rebuilding their nations in our own image violates that fundamental right. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

A better question would be: Is modern day Japanese (or German, or Italian) society more or less democratic than it would have been absent US intervention after WWII? From there, we can go on to ask: Is it more or less in keeping with those countries traditional cultures? If the changes are positive in our view, are they negative in another view (ever heard of Yukio Mishima)? And finally, when viewed as an investment by the US taxpayer, has the money spent to influence those nations paid a good return on investment? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Absolutely. That's why we shouldn't be trying to do it. Just to play devil's advocate, didn't we terrorize, occupy, and then help build democracy in Japan in the aftermath of WWII? You could make an argument that we did it in Germany, too. But I still think it's morally wrong to impose our values on another nation, no matter how superior we think those values are, or how benign we feel ourselves to be. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Go for it. Just trace all the applicable lines, figure out exactly what your grievances are, sort out who you have those grievances against, and file your lawsuit. Shortly after the civil war, the union confiscated the personal estate of a southerner and used it to create a cemetery for union soldiers. No confederates were buried there. It was sort of done as a final "up yours" for daring to fight. About 20 years later, the son of that man successfully sued the federal government for compensation under the takings clause of the 5th amendment. I think everyone should have the right to sue for recompense of their grievances. If their grievances are legitimate, then they will win in court. If they're not, then they'll waste their time and money trying. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Absolutely. That's why we shouldn't be trying to do it. I think it's insane that the US really does try to do such things. I have no idea why my tax dollars are spent on it. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Sure. And they're welcome to sue the former owner, or his estate, for the wages. I imagine the damages claimed as a result of human enslavement would extend beyond mere "back wages". In any event, some of those slave owners' assets can probably be traced to their own heirs' assets existing today. Imagine the seizure of those assets in execution and satisfaction of judgments. Lotta damned unhappy good ole boys, I dare say. So? I think that individual cases can be litigated at the discretion of the aggrieved parties, or their estates. I see no reason why people whose families didn't even live in this country until after the civil war should be made to pay for anything. Trace the actual grievance, and bring it forward, and have your day in court. That's a heck of a lot more fair than trying to establish some blanket "guilt" based on skin color, and extending to people whose ancestry obviously doesn't include any kind of gain from slavery. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The junker has to have been continuously insured BY YOU for the 12 preceding months. I'm pretty sure it just needs to have been registered, because not all states require insurance. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I think it's a bad idea to turn the government into a used car dealer. But, if it does happen, I've got an old truck that I never drive, which is probably worth about 500 bucks. I'd be happy to trade it in for the credit, since I've been thinking about buying a new car anyway. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Sure. And they're welcome to sue the former owner, or his estate, for the wages. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Seriously, you guys need to let it go. Here's the thing. Moderators are allowed to bait you. They're allowed to argue with you. They're allowed to trick you, twist your words, or do whatever else any other poster is allowed to do. The things they aren't supposed to do all have to do with moderation actions. What's happening here is that you're getting baited and goaded enough that you lose control and break the forum rules (by making personal attacks). That doesn't indicate any bias on the part of the moderators. It just shows that they understand the rules and can use them against you if they wish. The correct response here is not to bitch that you only broke the rules because they goaded you--that's not a viable defense. The correct response is to just let it go, and either (a) move to another thread, (b) argue civilly with endless patience, (c) make silly and/or word twisting (but not personal attacking) posts of your own, or (d) just shut off the damn computer and go do something else for a while. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Khatami was probably more of a reformer than Mousavi. Despite being president, he basically got shut down at every turn by the Guardian Council. The idea that the election was rigged is fascinating, if only because I don't think the establishment is at all threatened by a reformist President. They just circumvent and hamstring all the reforms. That means that the election rigging was done by the current President--not the Supreme Leader (although it may have had the Supreme Leaders knowledge and obviously had his tacit support after the fact). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com