« Personal Fears Semi-Open Post | Main | Your ObWi Hospital report »

January 12, 2018

Comments

the coastal elites have an actual plan

this needs defining. who are the coastal elites? where do they live exactly?

because it sounds like you're using "coastal elite" as just another word for "Democrat".

There are people who value knowledge and expertise and acute analysis, and people who think "alternative facts" are just as good as real ones. I'm with the former group: if that makes me an elitist I'll live with the opprobrium.

My viewpoint exactly. And if on this basis I am to represent the elites, I'm happy to do so. But seriously, I do think this whole phenomenon is pretty poisonous, and as russell rightly says:

It's propagated to keep us all at each others' throats. It's divisive, harmful bullshit.

Why should people in WV get to decide what I have to breathe?

"because it sounds like you're using "coastal elite" as just another word for "Democrat"."

Actually there is a difference in the definitions. Democrats in general are just the base fooled by the elites. They are made to feel superior and righteous while supporting policies that are almost entirely detrimental to the middle class.

When people complain then the elites simply tell them they need to grow up and blindly vote for Dems because they don't have any other real choice, that they are helping the bad guys.

Ultimately "coastal" is just a description of where they are concentrated.

Why should people in WV get to decide what I have to breathe?

Don't you read their stuff? They are the "REAL Americans". You, obviously, are not. What do they want? They, like everybody else in an organized political group, want to have their way.

But you also must realize that their demanding to have their way is RIGHTEOUS and your demanding to have YOUR way is the sniveling efrontry of your over-educated arrogance.

But YOU, you know, YOU, you elitist snob, are the one with the ACTUAL sinister plan.

And now you know.......the rest of the story. Good day.

Lots of people, including the vice president of the United States, would like to put me back in the closet, stunting my life and making it impossible for me to live as the normal humdrum human being that I am. Plenty of people would like to see my relationship life re-criminalized; in fact, as of March 2017, it had never been de-criminalized (per statute) in Texas, despite Lawrence v. Texas.

I say, “It’s my world too.”

They say, “It’s my world, you live in it at my sufferance.”

Yet to Marty, I’m the one who’s telling other people how to live.

I guess it’s because of the horrible trauma it causes them to know that I exist.

JanieM, you're glossing over the plan to force white Christians into same-sex marriages with black Muslims. You're part of the slippery slope.

Geez, hsh, now you've let the cat out of the bag, we'll have to make a whole new plan.

I addressed the deficiencies I see in the evangelicals self righteousness Janie, both can be wrong.

Lots of people...would like to put me back in the closet, ...

We libertarians feel so unappreciated. :)

Libertarians have been for gay rights and same-sex marriage many decades before it became fashionable in other policial venues. Or, more broadly, leave people the heck alone to live their lives as they see fit as long as they're not directly harming anyone else.

Gay rights and same-sex marriage were included in the Libertarian Party's first plank in 1972.

Marty and CharlesWT: duly noted.

Sidetrack, mostly for entertainment, but relevant to the word "elitist":

Going through an old folder of my op-eds from years ago, I came across a letter to the editor reacting to a debate over a proposed ski resort development in Western Maine – dated 1988. (The link is to a piece in the NYT, but the article I was responding to, and my own letter, were published in the Kennebec Journal.)

To the Editor:

Hikers and environmentalists are elitists! (KJ 8/17/88.) We have it straight from the mouth of Donald Breen, a man with $37,000,000 to spend expanding that money machine – oops! ski resort! – called Saddleback Mountain.

Or maybe I’ve got it wrong. Maybe Breen intends his condominiums to provide low-income housing, his shopping center to include discount stores, and his lift ticket prices to be keyed to income levels so that all sorts of people can enjoy the slopes.

But no, I don’t suppose he does. The headline said, “Skiers, Hikers clash,” but the clash really isn’t between skiers and hikers. It’s between people who think money and glitz make the world go round, and people who don’t. It’s between people who are willing to put money into the coffers of developers like Breen and people who would prefer that the last bits of accessible wilderness left on the planet stay wilderness.

The real trouble with hikers is not that they’re elitist. After all, the proportion of the population capable of walking up a mountain is surely higher than that able to ski down it once they’ve managed to afford the price attached to doing it. The real trouble with hikers is that they don’t spend any money while they enjoy the wilderness they’re not destroying.

Apropos of our current discussion, note that I was happy to play on the shades of meaning connecting "elitist" with "wealthy."

Ultimately "coastal" is just a description of where they are concentrated.

so: NC, SC, GA, FL, TX, LA, MS, AL - all full of liberals?

They are made to feel superior and righteous while supporting policies that are almost entirely detrimental to the middle class.

it's because we don't live in the "heartland" and so we don't have the "true American values" that "real Americans" do. and so we don't vote to let our infrastructure crumble or give tax cuts to billionaires. if only there was a group of people somewhere who could tell us exactly how to live our lives and how we should feel about our country. alas.

Also, while in the spirit of comity and acknowledging common ground in relation to certain kinds of music I am willing to "duly note" Marty's "both sides do it" comment -- still yet and again, at least as between me and the people who would like me to disappear, both sides are not doing it.

I don't want to criminalize some aspects of their basic humanity, I don't want to prevent them from enjoying the fundamentals of living in a modern democracy, I don't want them to hide in the closet, I don't want to stop them from going to church and doing whatever it is they do there (unless it's beating up other people). I just want them to accept that I'm here too.

The reverse is certainly not the case.

Politic leanings aside, I like Obama's approach and hate Trump's.

This preference for Obama's approach extends even to some never-Trump (for lack of a better term) Republicans. They might prefer the actual policies that Trump's appointees are implementing. But intensely dislike the way he is utterly indifferent to facts.

Democrats in general are just the base fooled by the elites. They are made to feel superior and righteous while supporting policies that are almost entirely detrimental to the middle class.

Substitute "Republicans" for "Democrats", same/same.

Substitute "Libertarian" for "Democrats", same/same.

what is utter crap in this discussion is the idea that one set of people wants to impose their values on everyone else, while everyone else just wants to be left alone.

including Marty, and most definitely including CharlesWT.

everybody has their particular set of values and interests. own yours, and I will own mine. but the idea that you just "want to be left alone", and "people like me" are trying to impose my values on you, is invidious crap.

In a nutshell, it's why the country is where it is right now.

Every policy either of you guys has ever proposed or argued for here on ObWi would have *negative impacts on somebody else's life*. Every damned one.

You just think the overall benefit of having your preferred way of doing things would be greater than the whatever negative effects would be on everyone else.

Because you value a certain set of ideas and beliefs. You think they are correct, and good.

Just fucking own that, OK? Feel free to advocate for it, defend it on the merits, explain why you think it's beneficial.

And the rest of us will do the same. And we'll have it out, and sometimes some of us will prevail, and other times others of us will prevail.

Or maybe we'll just call it a day and all go our separate ways. Which will, in itself, create a whole lot of costs and hardships that will be imposed on other people, including ourselves.

But don't pretend that what you want is not, precisely, a matter of imposing your values on other people. Because that is just crap. Imposing your values on other people is *exactly* what it is.

I am willing to "duly note" Marty's "both sides do it" comment

The preferences of evangelicals doesn't begin to scratch the surface of the million and a half ways in which people who say they "just want to be left alone" would be perfectly happy to impose a mountain of crap on the rest of us.

So that they can be "left alone", which is to say, allowed to do whatever the hell it is they want to do.

..., while everyone else just wants to be left alone.

including Marty, and most definitely including CharlesWT.

Everyone should be left alone. Don't Tread On Anyone.

I suppose that approach could be viewed as an imposition by those who think they know how society should be organized.

Underlying a lot of this is the recognition that the coastal elites, many of whom I know, believe that they are superior intellectually, morally and ethically, thus having the right to decide how everyone else lives.

Which is true of both (all?) sides. I defy anyone to listen to, for example, the "Moral Majority" and say that they don't think that they have "the right to decide how everyone else lives".

So that they can be "left alone", which is to say, allowed to do whatever the hell it is they want to do.

Yes, they should be allowed to do whatever the hell it is they want to do as long as they don't directly harm anyone else in the process.

as long as they don't directly harm anyone else in the process

So indirect harm to pretty much everyone and everything, including flora and fauna and future generations, as from pouring pollutants into rivers and streams and the air, is okay?

..., as from pouring pollutants into rivers and streams and the air, is okay?

Those would seem to be direct harms, trespass against property.

Rivers and streams have often suffered from the tragedy of the commons since they're usually public, not private property. If not polluters themselves, governments have often ignored pollution or wrote regulations that protected pollutes from lawsuits while allowing pollution levels no private owner would.

Due to its nature, air pollution has the strongest argument for government regulation to limit it.

they should be allowed to do whatever the hell it is they want to do as long as they don't directly harm anyone else in the process.

there's the question of indirect harms, noted above.

and then there's the question of how we sort out the cases where one man's harm is another man's "no big deal".

regulation, lawsuits, or guns. take your pick.

It’s very simple in the abstract, at least. Let’s move to the other USA (United States of Abstract).

Marty: ...the coastal elites ... believe that they are superior intellectually, morally and ethically ...

What a contrast with Real Murkins!

Marty: Dont those people in WV see what the experts said? Sure but that doesnt mean they all want the mines to close and go on welfare. Of course closing mines doesn't impact people in SF and Boston at all.

Do "those people in WV" care what happens to the coal? Suppose "people in SF and Boston" were willing to hire half the population of WV to dig coal out of the ground and the other half to bury it again (at good wages, no "welfare"). Would proud West Virginians be unhappy that the "coastal elites" are not actually burning the coal?

Marty: In the reverse, evangelicals believe God told us how to live and they only have the playbook.

Which makes them more like the Taliban than like "the coastal elites" which Real Murkins know to be anything but god-fearing.

Marty: ... the tide seems to be that the coastal elites have an actual plan that may eventually work to impose their views on everyone.

When the Wingnut Welfare Establishment of plutocrat-funded "think tanks" and "foundations" has managed to enlist all three branches of the national government in its cause, who is it that has an "actual plan"?

Marty: Democrats in general are just the base fooled by the elites. They are made to feel superior and righteous while supporting policies that are almost entirely detrimental to the middle class.

I asked Marty once before, but I will ask again: if the Republicans were willing to increase the dreaded national debt with tax cuts, why didn't they raise the standard deduction more and cut the corporate rate less? Could it be that they figured "the middle class" can be fooled by policies that are almost exclusively beneficial to the rich?

--TP

I would like to hear what CharlesWT has to say about this story in the Boston Globe:

ROCKPORT — Private heliports may fly in Florida, where ostentatious displays of wealth are a proud part of the cultural landscape. But stodgy New England towns are another matter.

And that’s not good news for Ron Roma, a Tampa businessman who was told by Massachusetts’ highest court this month that he cannot land his chopper on the lawn of his sprawling seaside home in Rockport, a small Cape Ann fishing village known for its rocky shoreline, weathered shingled houses, and historic community of painters and artisans.

Roma, who sued Rockport after it ordered him to stop landing his helicopter at his house, said he was not surprised that he lost his case in the Supreme Judicial Court because “it’s Massachusetts.”

I include the excerpt in case the link doesn't work without a subscription.

he was not surprised that he lost his case in the Supreme Judicial Court because “it’s Massachusetts.”

damned straight.

I would like to hear what CharlesWT has to say...

I would say that the town shouldn't have standing unless it can demonstrate direct harm from noise pollution, property damage from downdrafts, the risk of injury to people and pets, etc.

what if the guy's neighbors just don't want to listen to his freaking helicopter coming and going?

what's the bar for "direct harm"? does someone have to die, or is listening to a really loud annoying machine sufficient?

why is it more important for one guy to be able to come and go in a helicopter than for everyone else to not have to listen to it?

it's also worth noting that rockport is, like many small-ish older new england towns, run by town meeting. "town government" is the selectmen, the bylaws are probably voted up or down in an open public meeting. i.e., "the town" is the folks who show up for town meeting.

if the guy doesn't like it, he can come to town meeting and make his case. if he wins, he wins. if he loses, no helicopter.

it beats lawsuits, to prevail in court costs money. if you got no money for lawyers, you're SOL.

what if the guy's neighbors just don't want to listen to his freaking helicopter coming and going?

Wouldn't that constitute noise pollution? Or is the term precisely defined somewhere...?

let's hear more about how "conservatives" help the middle class.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/the-cfpb-is-now-the-predatory-lender-protection-bureau.html

Charles,

I don't think "the town" is an entity that can hear noise or feel downdrafts. Do the residents of the town have the right to act through the town government they elected? If not, do they nevertheless have a collective obligation to provide Mr. Roma's property with access to water, sewer, utilities, a road, or police and fire protection?

--TP

as they don't directly harm anyone else in the process

As a number of subsequent comments have already implied, this skims pretty daintily over the question of who gets to define harm.

My neighbor's helicopter noise would most certainly be a harm to me, in my opinion. As it is, if the snowmobile season weren't as short and random as it is, I would have serious issues with the noise of people revving their engines a few yards from my house all night on weekend nights, with extra special effects from when they play Indy 500 on the lake across the road.

If I ever move, and consider buying land somewhere else in Maine, for sure one of the things I will be looking at is how far I can get from trails accessible to snowmobiles.

More on Mr Roma:

http://www.salemnews.com/news/local_news/sjc-rockport-has-right-to-restrict-helicopter/article_7073f804-b68b-5fdf-bc55-ac3eb9ee5755.html

A Timeline of Mr. Roma's actions leading up to the complaint:

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/timeline-helicopter-landings-in-rockport/collection_d31a5f06-b926-11e4-88ad-83016fb06589.html

If you have Google Earth, navigate to 133R Granite Stree, Rockport, Massachusetts. Roma owns several contiguous properties.

https://earth.google.com/web/@42.672953,-70.621442,9.44503889a,752.14923166d,35y,0h,45t,0r/data=ClIaUBJKCiUweDg5ZTMyOGEwNzQ1OWY1OWQ6MHhlZDdmYTc0NDZkMWNiNTk4GV9f61IjVkVAIRiXqrTFp1HAKg8xMzNSIEdyYW5pdGUgU3QYAiABKAI

Seems Mr. Roma had FAA approval to land the copter, in other words, the intrusive Federal government, at Mr. Roma's request, usurped well-established LOCAL land use ordinances, where conservatives believe all decision-making starts and ends.

I would imagine CharlesWT wouldn't mind if an FAA permit was not required either, but he can correct me on that impression.

I'd say if Roma appeals to a higher court and wins, then his neighbors should schedule skeet shooting contests from their properties out over the water at the same time Roma is trying to land.

And, what the hell is a Florida coastal elitist doing moving into an elitist coastal community in Massachusetts?

He could move to Texas and land on his neighbor's lawn, for all they apparently care.


In the article, the town's residents seem only concerned with indirect harms:

"Town officials hailed the court ruling as a victory for residents who want to prevent Rockport from turning into another seaside vacation town jammed with affluent newcomers who show little regard for the community’s small-town charm."

Perhaps they didn't try or couldn't show much in the way of direct harms.

But, then, communities zone against all kind of things. Some prohibit pickup trucks.

More on the controversy:

Gants, in the 21-page decision, said the Appeals Court panel had focused on the wrong issue and that its reasoning had a major "flaw" — that the real issue was how cities and towns regulate the use of land, not aircraft.

"In short, what was at issue in Hanlon (the Sheffield case) was not the 'use and operation of aircraft' ... but the use of land, the regulation of which has traditionally been within the domain of cities and towns through their zoning authority."

"The Legislature has long bestowed broad authority on cities and towns to regulate the use of land through various zoning enactments," the decision said.
Rockport can restrict copter: High court rules issue is use of land, not aircraft

"small-town charm"

I can't tell if that sounds bi-coastal elitist or mid-western flyover. Could be it's same same.

I've flown over most of America, including LA, SF, and NYC on the way out of the country, and never had a complaint from the elites below. I've taken Greyhounds across country that stop every twelve miles and no one has ever handed me the keys to Mayberry for the trouble it took me. I've hitch hiked across America and not been harassed by law enforcement on the coasts and wish I could say the same for everything in between, but this was before civil forfeiture, practiced by local fascist hayseed police forces, so I paid the fine and went on my way still owning my pants.

I've driven just about everywhere in the lower 48 and everyone is about as nice as can be, except for those farm boys in Minnesota on the country road who ran me off into the woods for, I guess, the shoulder-length hair.

They probably moved to one of the coasts later to sample sodomy as free Americans and sign on with a republican think tank and I don't hold it against them .... that first thing. The second has done irreparable harm to America.

Russell, up above, used the term "bullshit", America's middle name now under the colossal pig shit republican program these last forty years to demonize the OTHER and make sure those who agree with them THINK THEY are the OTHER .. in a sort of paroxysm of victim envy when every originalist faulty assumption about this country was handed to them on a plate they smuggled in on the fucking Mayflower.

Ronald Reagan .. Hollywood, the Left Coast elitist goes after mythical fat black Caddy-driving welfare mothers in flyover country... Chicago.

She was so fat in his mind that he could spot her from the air as he flew over Chicago, the heartland, on his way to Washington D.C. to apply elitist policies to her fat behind, which is why Nancy Reagan, who blew who her way to mediocrity in Hollywood, and yet achieved meritocracy ... it's amazing how those two terms get confused in people's minds .... kept the weight off, just in case the addled B actor might change his mind.

My Dadaist juxtapositioning missed this, I'm ashamed to say.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/she-said-vince-mcmahon-sexually-assaulted-her-in-a-tanning-booth-police-found-probable-cause-prosecutors-shrugged

I mean, ya figure fake news WWF originalists and Papa John's coming together all in one kanoodlingpalooza would be a logical outcome of soul-less Christian Objectivist syncretism into one big rape camp.

At least Hillary had the taste to find a pizzaria with a basement to avoid the inevitable FOX News-enabled conservative fucking gunfire.

I'd move to Washington D.C. too to fake knowing anything about coastal elitist small business administration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W773ZPJhcVw

Back atcha, Count.

And I wonder .... yes, I wonder .... what went wrong:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI2PXkXZPfk

i guess i have one more comment on all of this. apparently i always have one more comment.

way upthread marty talks about coal and west virginia as if it's some kind disservice to the people of west virginia to wind down coal as a sigificant fuel source.

one of my maternal great-grandfathers died in a mine. one of my wife's grandfathers died way too young of emphysema after a life of digging coal out of the ground.

i understand the pride that west virginian miners - and other traditionally blue collar communities - take in doing hard jobs willingly and well. but if you think you are doing west virginians a favor by sending another damned generation or two of their people down a damned hole in the ground to scratch out a living, i think you're freaking nuts.

those folks deserve better. i'm not gonna make that happen, and i make no claims about knowing what they should do instead. but they deserve better.

russell,

It is a disservice to wind down coal usage and write off WV as another casualty of progress. Fall River still hasn't recovered from the mills closing. It isn't the reality, it's the complete lack of empathy that defines the elite. Facts, studies, data, all are used as shields to hide from the human trade off, to allow "us" to justify "your" hardship.

trump's secretary of commerce is wilbur ross. check out wilbur ross' history vis a vis coal mining in WV. then come tell me about the complete lack of empathy of the "elites".

to follow up - coal's going away because it's no longer the most economic source of fuel. just like the fall river mills went away because fall river was no longer the most economic place to run a mill. or salem, or beverly, or lynn, or lowell, or lawrence, or pittsfield, or holyoke, or any of 100 other new england mill towns.

if you want to tell me that folks who come at this stuff from a technocratic point of view are not always in touch with the tangible reality of regular folks' lived experience, i will not push back very hard. but at least they're trying to get their heads around a solution. not a band-aid, a solution.

in contrast, trump and the (R)'s in general promise them a loaf and give them a stone. they promise them a fish and give them a snake.

Here's the latest from the Carrier plant that Trump "saved" last year.

I'll take a pointy-headed do-gooder, however out of touch, over a fucking liar any day.

Wilbur Ross and West Virginia coal mining.

Facts, studies, data, all are used as shields to hide from the human trade off, to allow "us" to justify "your" hardship.

As opposed to "wishful thinking, fantasy, fraud, and faith-based griftery", I guess so. That must be my 'elitism' speaking, because I always find 'facts, studies, data' to be very useful for actually solving problems, instead of just bitching about how someone is holding you down.

YMMV.

trump's secretary of commerce is wilbur ross. check out wilbur ross' history vis a vis coal mining in WV. then come tell me about the complete lack of empathy of the "elites".

But Trump's cabinet, overwhelmingly, ARE elites. Not to mention that Trump himself is part of the elite . . . or at least an elite wannabe. Far more than that "elitist" from Illinois (aka "fly-over country"), Obama.

I'll take a pointy-headed do-gooder, however out of touch, over a fucking liar any day.

Lying is being taken to a whole new level. Propagandists sympathetic to Putin write a memo discrediting the FBI, classify it, give it to the FBI, then demand its release as an official document.

Things are getting scarier by the minute, but the dupes remain persuaded that it's all good.

Marty, since I was the person who brought up the coal miners and Trump's promises in the first place, I just want to say that I agree with every word of what russell says above, particularly his 10.48 p.m.

I should in all fairness admit that I have argued much as you do when I was opposing cold-blooded advocates of our austerity economics, who seemed to demonstrate with great expertise that austerity is absolutely necessary to improve our economy and thus benefit "everybody" in the long term, but owned up to not knowing a single person who has suffered, or is going to suffer, from any of the e.g. benefit cuts. But I am comforted by the fact that equal numbers of well-qualifid experts, with equal numbers of relevant facts at their disposal, disagree, and propose other (perhaps Keynsian) solutions which will not disproportionately penalise the poor and vulnerable. Does this remind you of any of the arguments we have had here about the Republican plans to improve the economy, and your certainty that those plans will eventually help the middle class and not just billionaires? How come you are so prepared, in that example, to tolerate the human trade off, to allow "us" to justify "your" hardship.

More on Mr Roma

If I had the money, I'd like to buy all of the property abutting Mr Roma's joint. I'd open a half-way house and rehab facility for homeless drug addicts and drunks. The rehab program would be a work-based protocol involving the raising of hogs.

Kind of a cross between Dropkick Murphy's place and Wavy Gravy's Hog Farm.

With skeet shooting and thrash metal band practice as recreational pastimes.

No direct harm would be done to Mr Roma.

write a memo

my representative puts out weekly push-poll emails. this week's was about "the memo" and "FISA abuses".

my reply to his email was a link to the House vote tally, which showed that he had voted to continue FISA as-is, and had voted against all amendments that would limit potential FISA abuses.

it's theater. and the rubes love them some theater.

Russell, you'll want to be sure you are upwind for maximum effect.

@russell: Send me a prospectus, I'm looking for good investments!

But -- Roma's property is in Pigeon Cove. They ain't gonna put up with that sh!t any more than they're gonna put up with Mr. Roma's helicopters.

I'll tell them it's an artist colony. :)

Touché.

I believe this little essay touches on the question of "elites" and populism, both of the left and right variety.

Interesting stuff.

Alcohol and opium. Probably a little cocaine, too. Good for what ails ya.

...the coastal elites ... believe that they are superior, morally and ethically, thus having the right to decide how everyone else lives...

Two questions there: the first is what things should the federal government interfere in, the second is when they do interfere how should decisions be made.

The second part ought to be easy: decisions should be made by democratically election politicians following the recommendations of experts. All the USA needs for that is fair elections, which it should try, and politicians who recognize the limits of their competence, which unfortunately only the competent ones do.

The first is harder. I think the federal government should interfere in environmental issues which cross state or national, boundaries, to uphold civil and voting rights, to facilitate interstate commerce, and to protect citizens from gun-wielding murderers. That's not an exhaustive list.

Marty apparently thinks the federal government should interfere to protect failing industries from international competition, albeit at the cost of increasing prices for everyone, to increase transfers from democrat to republican-voting states, and he could tell us what else. Partly because those sorts of interference are not favoured by smart people who live on the cost.

Cocaine (or something similar). Put in baby formula, and then sold with the slogan: "Babies cry for it". Withdrawal will do that to you....

Pro Bono,

It's interesting that Marty says "coastal elites" and you reply in terms of "the federal government". I'm not disagreeing with you, mind. It's a fair bet that Marty and other complainers about "the coastal elites" associate the two.

I suspect, though, that their complaint -- to the extent it's not mere inchoate petulance -- extends to other "coastal elite" institutions. The major mass media outlets are concentrated on the East Coast. The mass entertainment industry is heavily based on the West Coast. Both influence "the culture" in ways that the "white working class" in "fly-over country" has been known to resent.

And surely the major money-changers in the temple that is America are both "elite" and "coastal". Their influence over the lives of Real Murkins is both vast and pernicious. The only force that can restrain their depredations, unfortunately, is the federal government, but don't tell the complainers that. They'd rather have their grievance.

--TP

the music industry's in nashville. guys who grew up in california put on cowboy hats and sing about their good old country homes.

so, there's that.

the feds are constitutionally authorized to regulate any commerce that crosses state boundaries. if corps don't want the feds in their lives, they can limit their activities to one state. problem solved.

if corps don't want the feds in their lives, they can limit their activities to one state. problem solved.

Well...

"The Filburn decision supported the president's policy, holding that the Constitution allowed the federal government to regulate economic activity that was only indirectly related to interstate commerce."
Wickard v. Filburn

Really?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-administration-mulls-nationalizing-5g-wireless-network-reports-2018-01-28?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts

Well...

damned SCOTUS, always legislating from the bench.

The ghost of Brett Bellmore wafts through...he used to cite Wickard on a regular basis. I appreciate the fact that CharlesWT manages it without the sneering. (Not being snarky.)

Having had it brought to my attention so often, I bit the bullet some years ago and actually read the Wickard decision. (Several times. But not for the same reason I read "The Sparrow" several times.)

It was, IMHO, badly written and fairly opaque to this layperson, a good degree more so (on both counts) than some other court decisions I've read. IIRC, though, Filburn was participating in a Federal crop program of some sort out of which he got subsidies, and by my interpretation what he wanted was to have his cake and eat it too, in short, to get the benefits of the program without the constraints it imposed.

It was frustrating that the decision (again, in my lay reading) never addressed or even named the question of whether he could have raised as much wheat as he wanted if 1) he did use it all on his own farm; and 2) he stayed out of the Federal program. (And I'm piecing this together from recollections that are maybe eight years old. The Con Law book I was reading from was borrowed...I doubt I kept my notes...)

I know nothing about the later citing of the case, but everything I could find online, including the Wikipedia article, seems to have been written by someone with a grievance about Federal overreach. So...I'm the tiniest tad skeptical about whether, as BB used to say, the Federal government is likely to step in and tell me I can't have a vegie garden.

So...I'm the tiniest tad skeptical about whether, as BB used to say, the Federal government is likely to step in and tell me I can't have a vegie garden.

Local officials are more likely to be the ones to come after gardens.

JanieM-

I think those who are concerned with federal government overreach* have a point from the perspective of the extreme reluctance of SCOTUS to limit application of the commerce clause.

I think it's fair to say that until United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (because, guns), there was a steady string of cases that deferred to "commerce" being whatever Congress said it was.

There are multiple cases dealing with agricultural products, so I honestly think that it is not crazy to say that SCOTUS would not save you if the feds decided to regulate your veggie garden. Politically I doubt it wold happen, but I would not count on the courts to stop it.


* I identify, register and vote Dem, but I have these concerns.

personally, i'd say let filburn grow whatever he wants on his own land to feed his own livestock.

that said, at the time the utter horror show of the depression was still fresh in everyone's mind, and federal intervention in markets for the greater good may have been less controversial than it is now.

i'd also guess that the "business interests" supporting filburn in all of this had agendas broader than feeding the horses.

and, there was a war on.

probably no simple, clear answer that is right for all times and places. that's why we keep arguing about this stuff.

i have friends in tradtional medicine and permaculture farming communities who worry about stuff like this all the time. with cause.

all of that said, it ain't 1942 and we were talking about modern corps, not roscoe filburn.

"probably no simple, clear answer that is right for all times and places. that's why we keep arguing about this stuff."

I totally agree.

I just have a general preference for local control whenever that can be justified and the commerce clause is a threat to that regardless of which party is in control at the federal level.

To talk about liberal coastal elites wanted to tell everyone else how to live their lives implies that conservatives have a great record of restraint. That has not been my experience.

"Small gov" pubs have been running purple Florida for decades through a combination of gerrymandering and Dem incompetence, and have completely abandoned any pretense of local control. Miami and Orlando have struggled to enact progressive policies due to overarching control from Tallahassee.

....everything I could find online, including the Wikipedia article, seems to have been written by someone with a grievance about Federal overreach.

try looking here.

and here.

The internets are a big place!

from bobbyp's second link:

It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes.

i find this hard to argue with. can't have your cake and eat it too, roscoe.

you could argue, in turn, that the feds ought not subsidize wheat in the first place.

then again, everybody likes to eat.

i find the case of southwest airlines interesting. for their first few years of operation, they flew only to cities in TX. or, mostly-ish only cities in TX.

they used this to successfully fight federal regulations on the use of love field, back when that was replaced by DFW as the main dallas-area airport.

they were certainly participating in a market that involved interstate commerce. they certainly were purchasers of goods and services - airplanes, jet fuel - that were provided by an interstate market.

but they only sold their services within TX, and so were exempt.

i'm fine with that, and i would also not be at all bothered had the decision gone the other way.

as a practical matter, it's kind of hard to think of commerce of any scale nowadays that does not cross state lines. so the issue seems like kind of an edge case, to me.

That has not been my experience.

nor anyone else's.

"Commerce" has expanded its reach across state (and national) borders FAR beyond what existed in 1789.

Yet the rule was written in 1789, and I hear that we need to hew to that Original Intent, since the other option is to dive into Relative Moralism, Squishy Pinkoism, and other such nefarious Isms.

Hypocrisy is always an option, but don't expect to avoid being called out on it and roundly and justifiably mocked.


To talk about liberal coastal elites wanted to tell everyone else how to live their lives implies that conservatives have a great record of restraint. That has not been my experience.

Well, all government would like to treat citizens as children.

Conservatives don't mind a little rough and tumble on the playground as long there's no hanky-panky in the bushes and no one's lunch money gets stolen.

Liberals don't mind a little hanky-panky in the bushes as long as everyone plays nice and shares their lunch money. Even with those who spent theirs on candy on the way to school.

Ok, what CharlesWT said.

There's something to be said for the Conservative world as described by CharlesWT and Marty.

In the actual world, purportedly Conservative governments have no problem with vast federal transfers, so long as they're to corporations and states which support them.

They're also strongly in favour of extending IP rights to help the big kids steal the little kids' lunch money.

I'd love to live in "conservative world" as described by CharlesWT and Marty.

Everyone would just go their way, living their lives. Nobody would bug anyone else, everyone would just get along. Nothing anyone did would ever intrude on or interfere with anything that anyone else ever did.

Take me there right now.

Looks like Trump has gone off the conservative reservation again.

Isn't there anything that he doesn't think the government should take over?

i find the case of southwest airlines interesting. for their first few years of operation, they flew only to cities in TX. or, mostly-ish only cities in TX.

they used this to successfully fight federal regulations on the use of love field, back when that was replaced by DFW as the main dallas-area airport.

A similar case was Pacific Southwest Airlines, back in the days when airfares were regulated (set) by a Federal agency. Because PSA flew only within California, they got regulated by a state agency instead. And therefore it was possible to fly between San Francisco and Los Angeles for a fraction of the cost to fly the shorter distance between, for example, New York and Washington.

What got really silly was that from San Francisco it cost several times as much to fly to Reno as to Los Angeles -- and that's less than a quarter the distance. But across a state line.

"and no one's lunch money gets stolen."

I guess that works if you limit it to law and order issues and exclude transfers via kleptocracy.

I typed this without refreshing the page ... I could have just co-signed PB's comment.

The Civil Aeronautics Board spent much of its time stamping out illegally low ticket prices. Not being able to compete on price, airlines had to compete on services like skimpy crew uniforms.

airlines had to compete on services like skimpy crew uniforms.

think of what they saved in fabric costs!!

think of what they saved in fabric costs!!

skinnier crew in skimpier outfits means less fuel required to fly them all around all day long.

it just makes sense.

science

They're also strongly in favour of extending IP (read all kinds of) rights to help the big kids steal the little kids' lunch money.

fixed.

ExtremismStrongly held opinions in the defense of justice and human decency is a virtue.

The full throated defense of the New Deal state is not a vice.

Even with those who spent theirs on candy on the way to school.

I saw what you did there.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/01/latest-in-holocaust-denial

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/czech-president-who-encouraged-citizens-to-buy-guns-and-get-ready-for-an-islamic-state-invasion-wins-re-election-2018-01-27

The darkness of fascist putin/mp/nra conservatism falls over Eastern Europe.

The darkness of fascist putin/mp/nra conservatism falls over Eastern Europe.

heh...well I guess those folks really want a revanchist unified Germany. Way to go.

bobbyp: The full throated defense of the New Deal state is not a vice.

Alas, it is also not a habit of most Democratic politicians.

And we know why: Democratic politicians keep imagining that they need the votes of golfers and "reasonable conservatives" before they can stand up for such self-evident propositions as:
1) Retired people should not live in poverty;
2) Old people should not die of medical neglect;
3) Schoolkids should not have to worry about getting shot;
4) Black people should not have to fear the police;
5) Civil servants should not have to fear political calumny;
6) None of us should have to fear accidental nuclear war;
7) Americans who became Americans as involuntarily as if they had been born in the US should not be in the power of racist fuckwads, not even tax-cutting racist fuckwads.
When Democratic politicians finally recognize that neither the McKinneys nor the Martys nor even the CharlesWTs are worth appeasing, we will get down to the fundamental question of what The American People really support.

--TP

What TP said.

TP FTW

Thanks, TP. But I have to confess I am a golfer. Just like the Dreamers, it's not my fault my folks chose a house across the street from a municipal course. I blame a deficient environment.

As to Dem politicians, primary the bad ones. As for conservatives/libertarians....we do not need their votes. We more of our voters, and they are out there.

"Don't mourn. Organize."

I agree with TP's enumeration of good things to stand for. I disagree that Democrats don't stand for them.

There are a few Democrats who need to be elected in red/purple states, and they're unreliable. But name the names of Democrats who haven't stood for those values (and then weigh the political consequences of those folks). We kicked out a lot of blue dogs, and lost a lot of seats.

Wherever we can, we need to stand strong for our values, get out the vote of people who care about those values, and do whatever is possible in places where it isn't so easy.

People who bash Democrats for not being left enough need to name names, and discuss those Democrats, and their constituents, and what will happen if we lose them.

And just another thing: Democrats in Congress haven't given anything away to Trump. Bash Republicans. If anyone has a beef against a Democrat currently in office, check out his/her constituents and evaluate options. Then talk about how bad they are betraying the New Deal.

The issues surrounding the Nunes intelligence memo (that he apparently made up) and the forced departure of Andrew McCabe are the next giant step toward irreversible autocracy. Not sure why we're talking about golf (which, incidentally, is really bad for the environment, but I'm willing to discuss that issue way in the future).

We should actually be brainstorming about what to do. What is everyone doing? I've been doing fairly one by one advocacy, and general community do-gooding - which really seems insufficient. "The Resistance" is a real thing, but I feel that it's kind of anemic. Let's discuss action.

We should wear something. What are we willing to wear?

tell me where i can push that will make a difference.

i look around, i see no levers.

the nunes memo is going to be about discrediting rosenstein. replace rosenstein with someone favorable to trump, and the mueller investigation is basically neutered.

were living in camp runamuck.

as far as what to do, the answer is throw (R)'s the hell out of congress. in large numbers.

"What are we willing to wear?"

Something as inconspicuous as possible. Show no emotion. It's a dead giveaway to the worldwide vermin conservative movement. You might be mistaken for one of those liberal human beings with feelings that the lethal deadpan rationalists find tiresome, politically correct, and ultimately expendable.

A better question would be "What are we willing to carry?"

And certainly don't speak of any plans for resistance on the internet or social media.

The NSA is listening and reporting directly to mp. The FBI and the CIA will soon be purged of remaining conscientious conservatives and replaced with apparachiks versed in one function.... licking the space between mp's testicles and his anus.

How bad is it? Ron Rosenstein is a member of the Federalist Society. The ruthless mp crew is maligning and removing a member of the Federalist Society, as right wing an organization as it gets in a normal political setting in pigfuck America, from government.

So, who are the mp people exactly? They'll off anyone.

You think this autocratic juggernaut is not going to escalate from here, and with savage violence.

Trust no law enforcement, none of their fucking captured courts, or any government institution.

Elections? The Reichstag fire, perhaps in the form of nuclear mushroom clouds over the Korean peninsula, is on its way to postpone those until the danger, all of it domestic, to the filthy subhuman conservative movement is neutralized and vanquished.

America is over.

1) Retired people should not live in poverty;
2) Old people should not die of medical neglect;

Just a note, Tony et al., that if we are serious about those, we need to raise Social Security payments to the point where they, by themselves, are adequate to do this -- since some will be unable (not merely unwilling) to save adequately. And increase contributions sufficiently to fund that. Ditto Medicare.

Both of which are NOT really FDR legacies.

The comments to this entry are closed.