i am awaiting...

[itnAklipse]

...with burning curiosity which US presidential candidate AE is going to throw his hat at later this year. If it be Barry Sotero again, then i will be content that i wasn't having a moment of overreaction a few months back.

If he would endorse either a third-party option, or an acceptable Republican candidate who supports the constitution, i might think there's hope for him yet.

i re-read his interview with GPS from 2002 and realized that apart from a couple of shortsighted mistakes in it - mostly regarding Clinton and international treaties & UN, and to a lesser extent religion - he did manage to read sensible enough.

[Bartek]

Yes, Mr E will change his mind after he read your post, your call of 'reason'.
I got fever for last 4 days but my brain didn't melt (at least not whole).

[lazarus corporation]

...with burning curiosity which US presidential candidate AE is going to throw his hat at later this year. If it be Barry Sotero again, then i will be content that i wasn't having a moment of overreaction a few months back.

Putting aside the rest of your post, I'm quite interested to know why you make an obvious point of refusing to use Barack Obama's chosen name and instead make a show of using a name he was known by when he was a child.

It particularly interests me because of your inconsistency - in the very same sentence you refer to "AE" (Andrew Eldritch, of course), but don't insist on referring to Eldritch by the name he was known by as a child. So why the inconsistency?

The usual social signifier of using the name "Barry Sotero" is, of course, to communicate the fact that the speaker/writer is one of those Birther conspiracy theorist loons, but I don't want to impolitely presume that you've taken on a whole new level of crazy.

[markfiend]

Yes of course using "Barry Sotero" is a birther dog-whistle. I suppose we should be grateful itnAklipse didn't say "B. Hussein Obama"...

A third-party candidate will not win the US presidency (at least not in its present form). If you mean someone like Ralph Nader, then I will merely pity you. If you mean someone like Ron Paul, I will actively point and laugh.

There is no moderate Republican candidate; Gingrich and Santorum have both dropped out, leaving Mitt Romney as nominee-in-waiting. However I severely doubt he can win the election. As a Mormon, I think the religious right (which now effectively controls the Republican base) will find Mittens "insufficiently Christian" for their liking, and stay home in droves.

Yes, the President has been a disappointment, (but, I suspect, in a different way for me than for itnAklipse) but on the principle of the lesser of two evils, I would, were I to be voting in the USA, hold my nose and vote for Obama.

[sultan2075]

I'm not sure why anyone should care (beyond the sort of obsessive trivia-mongering so characteristic of TSOM fans ) what Von thinks about American politics.

Obama has been, generally, a disaster domestically. In terms of government spending he has been extraordinarily irresponsible (GWB spent like a drunken sailor; BHO makes him look like an amateur in this regard). He has been harmful for liberty. He--like large portions of the contemporary American left--has a disdain for the rule of law, and what he cannot accomplish legislatively he has attempted to to accomplish administratively, through executive orders and the like. He has the same disdain for the separation of powers and limited government that characterized Woodrow Wilson. Like Wilson, like FDR, and like other American progressives, he wants to undermine the autonomy of the private sphere. Tocqueville's Democracy in America Vol. II, Part IV, Chapter 6 seems to be a pretty accurate description to me of the direction the Democratic party has taken over the last 100 or so years in the US. One might even call it prophetic. This is why the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare is so important: Congress and the Obama administration have tried to justify it on the basis of the Commerce clause in the Constitution (a clause giving Congress the power to regulate commerce between the states). If the Court holds that the Commerce Clause can be invoked to compel economic activity (rather than merely regulating pre-existing interstate commerce) the limitations on Congressional power are effectively done away with--which effectively does away with any limitations on Federal power whatsoever.

The Republican party in general does support the Constitution (the neoconservatives, as recovering leftists, are generally the ones that have issues with it), but they concede far too much legitimacy to the modern (i.e., Hegelian, not Lockean) state. The problem is that they are the party of Boromir: "give us the ring, and we'll use it for good!" they say. Statism is the problem, not the solution. More accurately, the administrative state, which creates a fourth branch of government grafted onto the existing Constitutional structure but unaccountable to the American electorate, is the problem.

I would call Romney a moderate statist; Gingrich is a statist; Santorum is a statist. Obama is a statist. Nader is both a narcissist and a buffoon (i.e., a left-wing Donald Trump). Romney has made noises about abolishing a few administrative agencies. This can only be a good thing.

Ron Paul will not run third party. He knows that the political future of libertarianism lies not in the Libertarian Party but in combatting the intellectual influence of the neoconservatives in the Republican party (a party traditionally made up of 3 different groups: religious/social conservatives, libertarians, and fiscal conservatives), and working to increase Rand Paul's influence in the party.

Romney will not have a problem with the evangelical vote. They do not have a lot of kind words for Mormons, but they also see the current administration (quite rightly) as encroaching on religious freedom. Republicans and conservatives (not the same thing, mind you) are not enthused about Romney. They do not trust him. He is not the ideal candidate for any of the major elements of the Republican coalition. However, there is general agreement among them that president Romney would still be better than a second Obama term.

[EvilBastard]

Quite aside from the fact that the guy's name was Soetoro, so there's some confusion happening.

#44 has been no better or worse than any of the others. So he hasn't started any wars (no need to), but he's also lurched from crisis to crisis and hasn't seemed to have been able to get anything done. Not surprisingly (for a politician) he's pissed all over his campaign promises (the real shock is that people actually believed that he would be any different just because he said he would), delivered some well-written speeches (which puts him ahead of #43), fractured the party, and generally been a bit of a waste of space. No worse than anyone else would have been, but given the American politcs has, since about 1976, become less about the president's abilities and more about his teeth, religious practices, and sexual proclivities, , I comfortably predict that this year will be the last presidential election that uses the current structure. In 2016 it will be "Who Wants To Be President?", a gameshow chaired by half a dozen fat talentless has-beens (I hear that Patricia Morrison has been invited) who will chose someone to be president based on their ability to answer some basic questions and sing all 4 verses of "Baa-baa Black Sheep" (which will have to be changed after Al Sharpton claims that it's racist, and Jesse Jackson decides that this is the bandwagon which will reignite his political career).

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Alexeivitch Hengist Tannenstein (to use the name people called him by when he was a child) decided to ignore the entire process, reasoning that it doesn't matter who's in the White House, policy is still dictated by whoever's got the money.

[DocSommer]

Statists - I think that's a valid desciption for most top-ranking politicians who act more or less like suggested by huge consulting teams and/or lobby people. I don't live in the states but I can imagine that daily life might not feel much different no matter if the democrats or republicans are in charge.

Opposition usually claims knowing everything better while the govermant parties excuses themself due to false decisions of the previous goverment and - of course - the global economy crises (usually caused by someone else, too). So both - opposition AND government is usually a pain in the ass to watch & listen to. Not a big surprise that most countries are faced with decreasing voter participations since people start getting tired watching this B-movie again and again. Oh Long Johnson...

[DeWinter]

I would have voted McCain over Obama, for the simple reason I knew what he stood for. It was near impossible to find that out about Obama due to his voting record showing a tendency to not vote on anything contentious. A career politician with no real beliefs. But he still looks a better bet than a predatory financial carpetbagger like Mitt Romney.
I'd rather the British and the Europeans looked to their own democracies, which are looking far shonkier than that of the US, personally.

[EvilBastard]

I'd rather the British and the Europeans looked to their own democracies, which are looking far shonkier than that of the US, personally.

No argument here, but I wish the Americans would stop referring to their system as a democracy. It isn't. It never was. It was never designed to be (and with good reason - you don't want all manner of illiterate and uneducated people choosing the president).
And yet the Americans seem convinced that they live in a democracy, and that they should export its values and structure. I mean, WTF?

[markfiend]

One thing I don't understand about American politics: why the obsession with the constitution? It reaches almost bibliolatry at times. The thing wasn't handed down to Moses on Mt Sinai. Hell, the whole bill of rights thing had to be tacked on by amendments!

Didn't Jefferson advocate ripping the thing up every 25 years and starting again?

[DeWinter]

You're right, but again shaky ground to speak from. Do you remember the EU renaming it's unwanted constitution so it could get it through national parliaments without public consultation?
There are similar people in Britain obsessed by Magna Carta and Common Law. Usually those with a deep distrust of the State and legal system, which I suppose is behind the Constitutional fanaticism.

[weebleswobble]

Why isn't Captain America running?

[markfiend]

Obama has been, generally, a disaster domestically. In terms of government spending he has been extraordinarily irresponsible (GWB spent like a drunken sailor; BHO makes him look like an amateur in this regard).

To be fair, GWB paid for two wars by... cutting taxes. It's hardly Obama's fault that he has had Bush's deficit to deal with, along with the banking crisis and associated recession. Nor can he be blamed for the fact that the Republicans have done their level best to thwart anything and everything that Obama has tried to do.

I agree that he's been no friend of civil liberties (one of the big disappointments I mentioned above).

I cannot understand how anyone can look at the US medical system and come to the conclusion that it's better than the social model like the one we used to have in the UK. I don't know enough about the way Obama has tried to push reforms through; what I do know is that right-wing demagogues started shouting about "death-panels" when Obama was trying to introduce a system initially proposed by the Republicans.

I also don't understand the problem with administrative agencies. Would you agree that (for example) environmental protection laws are necessary to prevent corporations (whose only responsibility is to the shareholders) from f*cking up the world for the rest of us? If we do not have administrative agencies, who do you propose should enforce these kinds of laws?

[DeWinter]

I cannot understand how anyone can look at the US medical system and come to the conclusion that it's better than the social model like the one we used to have in the UK. I don't know enough about the way Obama has tried to push reforms through; what I do know is that right-wing demagogues started shouting about "death-panels" when Obama was trying to introduce a system initially proposed by the Republicans.

There's been a fair amount of controversy over NFR and the rather inaccurately named NICE refusing potentially life-saving drugs due to cost. That's surely a form of death panel, if not as extreme as Fox News made out. At least with the US system if you get shafted you can change provider. In England if the NHS shafts you you're still made to contribute to it. I fondly remember trying to calm down my bipolar partner after she'd been yelled at by the on-call psychiatrist for having a major episode at an inconvenient time at the local A and E. Plus the hospital so filthy my grandmother who went in after a fall came out with a leg infection that resulted in her being unable to walk properly afterwards. And failed to spot the cancer that killed her six months later.

[markfiend]

The death-panel claim is based on the notion that if your NHS-analogue refuses you treatment, then you're stone out of luck. The situation here is that you can still co-pay. I know this isn't ideal, but the NHS doesn't have an infinite amount of money.

Your personal anecdotes aside, it is simply a matter of fact that the UK's system, as chronically underfunded as it is, still has a better average patient outcome at a lower cost per capita than the USA's.

[markfiend]

Oh and...

the evangelical vote...see the current administration (quite rightly) as encroaching on religious freedom.

In what way? Refusing to privilege (a narrow subset of Christian) religion in the public sphere is not "encroaching on religious freedom", squawks of "persecution" notwithstanding.

[sultan2075]

Oh and...

the evangelical vote...see the current administration (quite rightly) as encroaching on religious freedom.

In what way? Refusing to privilege (a narrow subset of Christian) religion in the public sphere is not "encroaching on religious freedom", squawks of "persecution" notwithstanding.

I'll respond to the other comments later (I'm between classes), but legally mandating that religious organizations purchase insurance plans that are incompatible with their religious beliefs is an infringement of their religious liberty. If the Catholic church thinks abortifacients are sinful, why should Catholic institutions be required to pay for them through insurance plans that cover them?

[EvilBastard]

...legally mandating that religious organizations purchase insurance plans that are incompatible with their religious beliefs is an infringement of their religious liberty. If the Catholic church thinks abortifacients are sinful, why should Catholic institutions be required to pay for them through insurance plans that cover them?

They're not. The law says that if an employer provides insurance as a benefit, then that insurance must cover contraception and birth-control. The employer is under no obligation to offer insurance as a benefit to its employees - it can choose not to, thereby solving the problem. It's very simple - don't offer insurance, allow your employees to choose the insurance carrier of their choice, and adjust their salaries in order to let them pay for the insurance that they want. Rocket science this isn't.

The church would like people to believe that this is some attack on their religious freedoms, and apparently they've been quite effective at convincing people of this (you believe it, and you're not the only person who does). It isn't.

[sultan2075]

...legally mandating that religious organizations purchase insurance plans that are incompatible with their religious beliefs is an infringement of their religious liberty. If the Catholic church thinks abortifacients are sinful, why should Catholic institutions be required to pay for them through insurance plans that cover them?

They're not. The law says that if an employer provides insurance as a benefit, then that insurance must cover contraception and birth-control. The employer is under no obligation to offer insurance as a benefit to its employees - it can choose not to, thereby solving the problem. It's very simple - don't offer insurance, allow your employees to choose the insurance carrier of their choice, and adjust their salaries in order to let them pay for the insurance that they want. Rocket science this isn't.

The church would like people to believe that this is some attack on their religious freedoms, and apparently they've been quite effective at convincing people of this (you believe it, and you're not the only person who does). It isn't.

Catholic institutions (colleges, hospitals, etc) are expected to provide health insurance for their employees. This puts them in the position of having to choose between fidelity to the Church and fidelity to the State. As things stand, Catholic colleges must either purchase health plans for employees that violate Catholic moral teaching, or they must fail to purchase health plans for their employees at all, and violate Catholic social teaching. The "religious employer" exemption is narrowly defined enough that Catholic colleges and hospitals are not covered.

[million voices]

If one is a pacifist and has the religious belief that war is wrong.

Can one get a refund on all the money that has been paid out on the various military adventures?

[sultan2075]

Obama has been, generally, a disaster domestically. In terms of government spending he has been extraordinarily irresponsible (GWB spent like a drunken sailor; BHO makes him look like an amateur in this regard).

To be fair, GWB paid for two wars by... cutting taxes. It's hardly Obama's fault that he has had Bush's deficit to deal with, along with the banking crisis and associated recession. Nor can he be blamed for the fact that the Republicans have done their level best to thwart anything and everything that Obama has tried to do.

I agree that he's been no friend of civil liberties (one of the big disappointments I mentioned above).

I cannot understand how anyone can look at the US medical system and come to the conclusion that it's better than the social model like the one we used to have in the UK. I don't know enough about the way Obama has tried to push reforms through; what I do know is that right-wing demagogues started shouting about "death-panels" when Obama was trying to introduce a system initially proposed by the Republicans.

I also don't understand the problem with administrative agencies. Would you agree that (for example) environmental protection laws are necessary to prevent corporations (whose only responsibility is to the shareholders) from f*cking up the world for the rest of us? If we do not have administrative agencies, who do you propose should enforce these kinds of laws?

The problem with the administrative agencies is complicated. There are a few different issues (not all of which I can get into here, since I have to give an exam soon). The first one, however, concerns the alterations in the way laws are made in the United States. If we look at Article I of the Constitution, it begins by stating that legislative power is vested in the Congress. This is commonly called the vesting clause; article II (the executive) and article III (the judiciary) begin the same way. It's important, because it indicates the fundamentally Lockean conception that is at work here: legislative power belongs to the people, and it is vested in the Congress; it is not Congress's power, it is the people's power. Ditto for the executive and the legislative. As Locke presents it in the Second Treatise, the legislative body cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands. The people are the source of legislative power, and that power is vested in the legislative body. It is not thereby the legislative body’s power. It is still the people’s power, and as such the legislature cannot delegate it to anyone (cf. §141 or so).

This is precisely what Congress does in the 20th century. It delegates legislative power to the administrative agencies under the guise of administrative rulemaking. There is now a subfield of American law that deals specifically with these rules. These rules have the force of law, but they are not made by the legislative body. They are instead made by unelected bureaucrats and administrators who are not directly accountable to the people. Thus, we see two problems: 1) from the point of view of the Lockean theory that underlies the Founding, such delegation is illegitimate and 2) it is also undemocratic (or unrepublican, if you prefer), because the legislative power is now exercised by people who are insulated from the voter. This, of course, is a wonderful thing from Congress's point of view: if the voters like what the administrative agencies do, they can take the credit. If they dislike it, they can blame the agencies (the same principle is at work in war: the US Congress has not declared war--I don't think--since WWII. What they have done instead is grant the President an authorization to use force. That way it's his responsibility and not theirs. They can keep their hands clean).

Additionally, in some cases administrative agencies possess more than just the legislative power in regard to their areas of concern. They are sometimes granted executive power (Fish & Wildlife, for example, has armed Fish & Wildlife agents who enforce the rules that the agency promulgates). In some cases the agencies have their own internal courts as well, and one does not have recourse to a Federal court until the appeals process in the administrative court has been exhausted. So, some agencies posses legislative, executive, and judicial power--in addition to be insulated from the influence of the voter. Thus, we have the "accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands," albeit for specific areas of concern. This may "justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny" according to Federalist 47.

The entire point of the Constitution, as a system of checks and balances, is to avoid such concentrations of power. This is why the United States is set up as what Madison refers to as a compound republic: the states and the federal government are meant to be checks and balances against one another just as the three branches are meant to be checks and balances against one another.

To answer your question about environmental laws, I think that law should be made by the legislative branch of government within the boundaries of the powers enumerated by the Constitution. Laws should be enforced by the executive branch. They should not be made by administrative agencies which are neither granted power by the Constitution nor accountable to the people.

One thing I don't understand about American politics: why the obsession with the constitution? It reaches almost bibliolatry at times. The thing wasn't handed down to Moses on Mt Sinai. Hell, the whole bill of rights thing had to be tacked on by amendments!

Didn't Jefferson advocate ripping the thing up every 25 years and starting again?

The Constitution establishes a government of limited powers, leaving room for a robust and autonomous private sphere, and enshrines the rule of law rather than the rule of men (it would be nice if we got back to that).

It doesn't need to be ripped up every 25 years because there is an amendment process. It is difficult enough that stupid amendments won't usually get through (the 18th is a notable exception!) but not so difficult that it can't be amended when it is necessary.

[EvilBastard]

Catholic institutions (colleges, hospitals, etc) are expected to provide health insurance for their employees.

Expected by whom? Regardless, they are not required to do provide health insurance. Their employees can choose the health insurance that they feel reflects their own religious convictions, and purchase this insurance with pre-tax dollars.

This puts them in the position of having to choose between fidelity to the Church and fidelity to the State.

Nonsense. The Catholic Church has made it very clear then when it comes to conflicts in their allegiance between church and state, the state will lose. Whether this concerns cover-ups of suspected paedophilia, or the employment of people whose lifestyles the church disapproves of, the church does will do what it pleases and woe betide the politician who would try to make them do otherwise.
In this specific instance, the government has passed legislation which it believes is for the benefit of the majority. Sometimes, in a political system like the US', you are asked to put up with some discomfort for the greater good. The Church has the opportunity to opt out, but has decided that there should be one rule for them and one rule for everyone else.

As things stand, Catholic colleges must either purchase health plans for employees that violate Catholic moral teaching, or they must fail to purchase health plans for their employees at all, and violate Catholic social teaching. The "religious employer" exemption is narrowly defined enough that Catholic colleges and hospitals are not covered.

Wrong. The employer can allow the employee to make his own choice about insurance - and that's not just church-affiliated employers, that's every company. Oddly, there are millions of employers in the US, some of whom have strong religious convictions, and yet the only one who has decided that they are deserving of a dispensation is the Catholic Church. How odd. And how unexpected.

[sultan2075]

Catholic institutions (colleges, hospitals, etc) are expected to provide health insurance for their employees.

Expected by whom?
Regardless, they are not required to do provide health insurance. Their employees can choose the health insurance that they feel reflects their own religious convictions, and purchase this insurance with pre-tax dollars.

They are expected to do so by the Church.

This puts them in the position of having to choose between fidelity to the Church and fidelity to the State.

Nonsense. The Catholic Church has made it very clear then when it comes to conflicts in their allegiance between church and state, the state will lose. Whether this concerns cover-ups of suspected paedophilia, or the employment of people whose lifestyles the church disapproves of, the church does will do what it pleases and woe betide the politician who would try to make them do otherwise.
In this specific instance, the government has passed legislation which it believes is for the benefit of the majority. Sometimes, in a political system like the US', you are asked to put up with some discomfort for the greater good. The Church has the opportunity to opt out, but has decided that there should be one rule for them and one rule for everyone else.

Pedophilia coverups, while obviously execrable, have nothing to do with this particular question. The point is that the administration has put colleges and hospitals affiliated with the Church in the position of having to choose between the demands of the law and the requirements of the Church. That is an infringement on their liberty of conscience.

As things stand, Catholic colleges must either purchase health plans for employees that violate Catholic moral teaching, or they must fail to purchase health plans for their employees at all, and violate Catholic social teaching. The "religious employer" exemption is narrowly defined enough that Catholic colleges and hospitals are not covered.

Wrong. The employer can allow the employee to make his own choice about insurance - and that's not just church-affiliated employers, that's every company. Oddly, there are millions of employers in the US, some of whom have strong religious convictions, and yet the only one who has decided that they are deserving of a dispensation is the Catholic Church. How odd. And how unexpected.

The Church expects it of Catholic universities. Saying "the Protestants don't have to do it" is pointless. It's like saying that they don't have to keep kosher. The Church hierarchy expects it. And frankly, if a pious Catholic who runs a business unaffiliated with the Church chooses to provide insurance to his or her employees, I don't see why he or she should be have no option but to pay for coverage that he or she considers sinful.

[EvilBastard]

Bottom line - the church has to decide whether it is part of civil society or not. If it is, then it has to abide by the rules of civil society as the rest of us do. Some of those rules may sit ill with the church - whether that means that they can't discriminate against employing people whose lifestyles they disapprove of, or being required to provide insurance for acts which they deem sinful. Civil society is governed by laws passed by the government, which deems that these laws are in the interests of the majority of the population. That could be a law that says you're not allowed to make childrens' toys from asbestos, sell alcohol to minors, or operate a motor vehicle when blind. You may not like the laws, and you are allowed to try to change them, but you cannot cherry-pick the laws that you will follow, at least not if you want to be part of civil society.

If it isn't part of civil society, then that's fair enough. Of course, it would have to give up its political power, charitable status, observer status at the UN, it would have to sever all ties with civil society, but that's the way it goes. You cannot have your cake and eat it too - either you're in, or you're out, but you don't get to pick and choose. This is where the paedophilia comes in: knowingly concealing a suspected criminal is called "conspiracy to pervert the course of justice" and it's against the law. The Church, however, believes that it should not be bound by this law, and therefore considers itself to be apart from civil society.

My belief system says that I shouldn't have to pay for a non-defensive military because I consider wars to be sinful, but try putting that on your tax return and see how far it gets you. Let the church part from civil society, let it do its own thing, provide the insurance that it feels reflects its value system. But until it is prepared to do this then it must abide by the rules that govern civil society, otherwise every group of whacko, silly-hat-wearing, medieval-belief-holding yahoos and loons will follow suit, at which point you have anarchy. Nothing wrong with anarchy in the abstract, but not in my neighbourhood, please.

[EvilBastard]

PS I don't know what the church is so worried about - surely everyone who works for it, or in affiliated institutions, would never be so sinful as to use contraception or birth control, so the insurers will never have to worry about covering it.