Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the controversial declaration of Sen. Cory Booker (D, NJ) that he was taking his “Spartacus” stand in releasing a restricted, non-public document regardless of the consequences. Well, it was not quite a dramatic as suggested since the document was in fact already public. As should come as no surprise to many of you who know my love for military history, I did however appreciate the reference.
Here is the column:
It was a moment that would have made actor Kirk Douglas blush. During the hearings into the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, Cory Booker (D-N.J.) announced that he would defy the Senate Judiciary Committee by releasing a nonpublic “committee confidential” document, regardless of the consequences. “This is about the closest I’ll probably ever have in my life to an ‘I am Spartacus’ moment,” he declared, recalling the memorable line spoken by Douglas in the 1960 film.
First, and foremost, the key to having a “Spartacus moment” is not to declare your own Spartacus moment. Second, you actually have to expose yourself to a lethal threat. It turned out that the document in question already had been released and Booker was informed that it was public before the hearing. However, Booker was right on one point.
The hearing procedures were questionable and this really was a Spartacus moment. It was just not the one Booker thought it was. He and other Senate Democrats have had a legitimate gripe about the unusually high percentage of material withheld from review and the unilateral use of “committee confidential” markings to control documents. It is troubling to have a largely unknown private lawyer removing hundreds of thousands of documents based on a privilege assertion that has not actually been formally made by the White House.
Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) also had a good point about the Democrats failing to ask for the release of documents and possibly engineering the confrontation in open committee. Yet, in the end, Democrats had the better case about the hearings being substantially different from past hearings in the method and the scope of withheld material. If Democrats had the better argument, it was lost in the atmospherics of the hearing. Indeed, for those lost in the theatrics, the story of Spartacus is instructive as suggested by Booker.
In history, gladiator turned rebel Spartacus was pursued by not one but two Roman senators turned generals, Marcus Licinius Crassus (left) and Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (right), who wanted to be the next consul of Rome. The point of the war was not just defeating Spartacus and his gladiator army but to be the one credited with defeating him. Crassus succeeded and proclaimed his victory at Capua. Magnus, however, claimed the honor by reaching Rome first, illustrating the danger of Crassus stopping to crucify 6,000 prisoners on the road to Rome as a statement.
The Kavanaugh hearings were like watching a contest to be consul of Rome. Booker and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who sat next to each other, are viewed as leading contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. Like their Roman predecessors, they knew that whoever slayed or injured Kavanaugh would be a celebrated Democratic hero. Harris effectively accused Kavanaugh of perjury, collaboration against special counsel Robert Mueller, and other unsupported misdeeds. Not to be outdone, Booker jumped up to declare himself Spartacus.
The problem is that someone actually did kill Spartacus. In this case, Kavanaugh walked from the hearing on his own power with a presumed Senate majority of support. It is certainly true that Republicans prevented access to information that might have undermined him, but neither Booker nor Harris made a convincing claim as future consul of the Democratic Party. One moment, however, did leave Booker looking a bit like a consul wannabe. In an uncharacteristic move for the usually mild mannered senator, Booker had a confrontation with reporter Byron Tau, who asked if his Spartacus moment was a political stunt. Tau said Booker told him he was “violating the Constitution by being in his way.”
That comment was unlikely meant as a real threat, as it is neither within the character nor authority of the senator. Presumably, Booker was referring to the fact that he was on his way to a vote and the speech and debate clause under Article I states that members of both Houses of Congress “shall not be questioned in any other place” when going to and from Congress. However, this is meant to deter the government, not reporters, which is why there is an exception case of “treason, felony and breach of the peace.” Given the grilling over the uncertain constitutional interpretations of Kavanaugh and support of imperial presidential authority, it was a sharply discordant moment. If you are Spartacus, you should not be denouncing reporters like a Roman consul.
Booker later went on television, trying to reinforce his Spartacus bona fides. He struggled to establish that he was actually breaking Senate rules by releasing other documents. He has now released more than 20 documents uncleared by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was like claiming to be a retroactive Spartacus after the battle. That could subject Booker to admonishment after a Senate Ethics Committee investigation, still far short of staging crucifixions between on the way to Rome.
Putting all of the theatrics aside, the Kavanaugh hearings left a troubling and damaging precedent for a process that already lacked substantive content. I have been a critic for years of the modern confirmation hearing, which is largely about senators rather than nominees. The hearings drained what little substance remained in the process. The unilateral denial of documents and theatrics of the opposition left the hearings as little more than a stunt by both parties. There was not a Spartacus to be found but, instead, an overabundance of would be Roman consuls.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the power of the Supreme Court in this country. It does not make the law, but rather is the final judge on cases before the law.
The three equal branches, the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial are all supposed to work together, as well as balance each other, guarding against excess.
However, the one branch of government tasked with legislating has refused to do so on many key issues. They have kicked the can down the road rather than do serious work to solve problems, such as the insolvency of Medicare and Social Security, fixing the Healthcare humanitarian crisis, and the demilitarized zone known as Chicago. Congress has become a group of Mean Girls out to win a popularity contest with voters. They like to give away party favors, but don’t want to take firm control of our spiraling debt. They cater to the grasshopper rather than the industrious ants planning for the future, doing the difficult work today. How do you compete with the message of play now, and don’t worry about the cost? So they fail to do the difficult tasks.
When Obama created an uber presidency, he mocked concerns about his defiance of the balance of powers. “Middle-class families can’t wait for Republicans in Congress to do stuff. “So sue me.” “As long as they do nothing, I’m not going to apologize for doing something,” the president continued.” Congress roared its approval of a US sitting President taking on shades of dictatorship, because it suited their purpose. Should President Trump ever say such a thing, there would be riots about Fascism. Congress wants a President to exceed his authority, as long as it benefits their side. Then he takes the heat, and is out in a few years anyway. They have decades long careers to cultivate, and cannot afford to alienate voters. They can claim that their support, or withdrawal of support, was because their opinions evolved.
Congress also wants the Supreme Court to exceed its authority and legislate, as long as it suits their purpose. The Supreme Court is not supposed to make law; it’s supposed to apply written law. If Congress doesn’t like the law at the SCOTUS’ disposal, then they have the means to change it. They can legislate anything they want, including reproductive law.
Far left, center, or far right should not matter. Personal opinion of the justice does not matter. The law is the law. How many times have we read Professor Turley lament that regardless of his personal opinion, the law was on someone’s side, or against it, from Bush to Obama to Trump?
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) said it best as follows:
Karen,
Of course the text of Sasse’s 15 minute civics lesson is correct; I posted the 15 minute video here on Friday as well. The problem is what Sasse said was needed and it will fade into the woodwork. I doubt we have 10% of the US population that a) understand why what he was talking about is important and b) cares. Voter ignorance, apathy and dependency is the 3-legged stool this massive, administrative state was built on. We haven’t hit bottom yet so it’s not going to change any time soon.
Karen, Honey, please. If we wanted Faux News’s take on things, we could just watch them. As with California, Chicago doesn’t like you, either. And, despite the blather you puke out, it is a fact that Kavanaugh’s name was added to the Federalist Society’s list of “approved” judges only AFTER the Mueller investigation began looking into Fatso’s collusion with Russia to cheat in the election. His addition was solely because he had previously written pieces espousing the view that a sitting President cannot be subpoenaed or charged criminally. THAT, Karen Honey, is his main “qualification”. Kavanaugh has also written about how judicial candidates can fudge their answers on questions about Roe v. Wade by claiming that “legal scholars” consider it settled law. Later on, they can claim that they don’t agree with these “legal scholars”, and also, that the SCOTUS can always reconsider previous rulings. His nomination is being shoved through by Republicans, specifically because they DON’T want the American people to have a representative say in who gets a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court or on federal courts, and who can therefore influence judicial decisions for decades to come. They are afraid of the blue wave, and you should be, too. When Barak Obama attempted to make judicial appointments, McConnell simply wouldn’t schedule hearings. He considers his political machinations to stack federal benches with radical conservatives to be his proudest achievement. In other words, he was shoving the right’s agenda down everyone’s throat. For this reason, I will not do business in any manner or purchase anything originating from the State of Kentucky. Kavanaugh is not worthy to be a Supreme Court justice. Just another slimy swamp snake.
The moderator should limit you to 140 characters.
You’re missing out on some mighty fine bourbon….
Tennessee also hopes that Nutchaca will have no truck with them, either
His nomination is being shoved through by Republicans, specifically because they DON’T want the American people to have a representative say in who gets a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court or on federal courts, and who can therefore influence judicial decisions for decades to come.
Earth to Nutjob, the American people knew an open seat on SCOTUS was going to get filled during the next presidency. As it turns out, another vacancy is in play. There might be 3rd. The American people rejected Clinton where it mattered. Had they wanted Clinton making those nominations, then they certainly failed to make it happen.
The rule change in the Senate was courtesy of your boy Harry Reid you myopic troll. That’s right, elections have consequences. Which means sometimes you’re the ramee. 🙂 Take it all, you earned it.
Olly, 2.8 million more Americans voted for Hillary. And that’s one the problems here; less people voted for Trump.
There are rules, and there is an electoral college. The popular vote is not the last word at all. You know it. She lost fair and square.
She didn’t even go to Wisconsin, is it any surprise that she lost the Rust Belt to a candidate that campaigned on fair trade not free trade?
Who signed NAFTA? Yeah, you remember. Bill Clinton.
Maybe some Democrats represent workers, but not the Clintons. No way.
There are rules indeed. But an Electoral College victory does not represent a mandate for change. Nor can one say, “The people chose Trump”. They didn’t! More chose Hillary. That’s a fact.
Said fact is annoying to Trump and supporters. It’s still a fact, however. Arguably Trump has no right to stack the courts with arch conservatives. Arch conservatives don’t represent 21st Century America.
And that’s the danger here: Trump could eave office ‘before’ 2020 under bad circumstances after placing dozens of judges on the courts. Should Millennials be stuck with Trump judges for decades to come?
I mean here we have a president who lost the Popular Vote by 2%. Then he triggers of Special Counsel Probe just weeks into office. Said probe reveals a pattern of corruption among Trump’s inner circle.
But unrelated to the Russia Probe is Trump’s mental health. Only Trump supporters insist he is sane. Yet Trump’s daily tweets alone provide an extensive ‘e’-trail documenting Trump’s instability.
So there is a very good chance that Trump could leave office under bad circumstances. And every non-Trump-supporter understands that possibility. For that reason we don’t want ‘any’ Trump judges.
“There are rules indeed. But an Electoral College victory does not represent a mandate for change.”
Whether the President wins by a landslide or with less votes but an electoral college win he is called Mr. President and has all the rights due him as he would have had in a landslide win. Whether Congress and the people will support his policies is another story, but his innate powers are exactly the same.
I can’t believe how poorly educated you are in these subjects.
But an Electoral College victory does not represent a mandate for change.
Where in the constitution does it say the victor needs a mandate? Where does it say a mandate is necessary to nominate judges? What’s wrong with a judge that will not legislate from the bench?
Just be grateful conservatives won’t allow Lawfare against liberals. For you however I’d make an exception.
Mandates are helpful. Theoretically, presidents lacking a mandate should compromise with the opposition.
Theoretically Presidents should compromise if necessary, not to assuage those misfits butthurt over their failed candidate. So far, compromise has not been necessary. Try again.
“More chose Hillary. That’s a fact.
Said fact is annonying to Trump and supporters”.
The endless whining of those devasted by the Trump victory was more likely to be the “annoying” factor.
However, the continued whining nearly two years after the election has actually developed into something that is more amusing than annoying.
Tom, presidential candidates are strongly encouraged to score ‘decisive victories’. When it’s a fluke of victory that doesn’t look real good. Especially when it’s accompanied by suspicions of foreign intervention.
A bunch more in places that didn’t matter to the electoral college.
Al Gore had a lot better beef than Hillary, But the Clintons screwed him over too huh
how can anybody get behind this catastrophic failure with a straight face?
Here’s something to consider. Trump supposedly blabbed about whacking Assad. Oh, that’s bad, I agree.
But Hillary actually DID help whack a foreign head of state by instigating the Libyan civil war and now Libya is a catastrophic failed state teeming with jihaadists.
DISGUSTING WAR WITCH!
She had her little Caesarian moment there huh? Veni vidi vici. Look it up. She’s disgusting!!
Talk about a violation of sovereignty. And why is she laughing? She lost a US ambassador on her watch in the middle of her byzantine instigations of that civil war. Yes that’s the strategic reality underpinning Benghazi and everyone knows it. We haven’t lost an ambassador since the mid 70s in Cyprus and that was a fluke. She was up to her conspiratorial eyeballs in mischief in Libya. Prolly all that money the Clinton foundation took from the Saudis, maybe their were projecting their wahabist power into a part of the Arab world that was formerly beyond their scope? Same group of people paying and arming ISIL and the other “valiant members” of the wahabist Syrian rebels, another insurrection designed to weaken a formerly orderly country that sinned most of all because it was not in the US-Saudi orbit.
….Sickening war-witch!
Which part of where it mattered don’t you understand? That is a problem…for you. The court will be lost to progressives for a generation or more. You and your ilk might want to brush up on your US Civics, because that’s the only way you’re going to get a win under this court.
Trump chose to go after the electoral college since he could have increased his numbers by focusing more in NY and California but that might have cost him the election. Instead he travelled all over the nation doing the smart thing in getting electoral votes stacked up in his favor. Hillary chose to stay at “home” where she was comfortable which turns out to be very dumb. Who does one want for President, the smart one or the dumb one?
Peter Hill:
The country isn’t governed by citizens of California where most of the popular vote discrepancies occurred. Trump won more states. That’s why we’re the United States not the United Californians.
California has more people than the 20 smallest states combined. Therefore to suggest that California shouldn’t count is totally erroneous.
With 55 Electoral College votes, California obviously does count.
Clinton received 4,300,000 more votes in California than Trump, which more than accounts for her 2.8 million overall lead in the popular vote.
A state that went 62% Clinton to 32% for Trump is way out of step with the 1.5 million popular vote lead that Trump had in the other 49 states.
The smaller states obviously have less clout than a the most populous state.
To avoid the dominence of one mega-sized, lopsided state controlling the destiny of the entire country, the Electoral College was designed as a compromise.
Those constitutional provisions are extremely unlikely to be changed, no matter how much the largest state is out of whack with the rest of the nation overall.
These lopsided discrepancies between a state like California and the rest of the country illustrate why the voters of one state are not given more clout than the considerable power of 55 E.C. votes.
No matter how “representative” of “the nation’s” will Peter or anyone else claims California, the huge discrepancy in that state’s popular vote says a lot about how “representative ” that state actually is.
That’s why one enormous state can’t always carry the election for a candidate.
“All” that needs to be to done to change the Constitution/ Electoral College system is to get 38 states to agree that the largest state’s popular vote should be able to swamp the results of 49 other states.
Good luck with that.
Peter Hill – California does count. However, since they are allowing illegal aliens to vote now, there is no reason to accept their vote totals as legitimate.
Nutchacaca, what do you know about Chicago?
Trump has considerable support in Northern Illinois, trust me. From the same hundreds of thousands of people who left Chicago the past decades, for the same reasons people voted for Trump.
Jeepers, Paul. 2 strokes? Assuming you have made the necessary lifestyle changes so that we won’t lose you, right?
FFS – I made lifestyle changes and have been forced to make adaptations. I figure, with good luck, I have at least another 10 years in me.
PCS, here’s your Joseph Mifsud update:
“An investigator involved in our efforts to serve him was told Mifsud might be deceased,” the DNC told reporters who asked about the claim.
But a Swiss-German lawyer who has been described as a close friend and adviser of Mifsud’s calls the allegation “nonsense.”
“I’m in a better mood today. I got it from really good sources. They say that he is alive, that he has another identity, and that he is staying somewhere, at a nice place,” Stephan Roh told The Daily Caller News Foundation on Sunday.
“I just this morning got a message, indirectly, that he is alive and that they have provided him with another identity,” added Roh, who did not describe his sources.
TheDCNF was not able to independently confirm whether Mifsud is alive.
No, Booker’s not Maxine. His general intelligence is more than adequate and he shows little sign of problems with self-control. Booker’s problem is his serial phoniness.
Squeeky – I look forward to what Diamond and Silk have to say about Corey and his latest outbursts. 😉
Let me know when they do, if you don’t mind. I am busy as heck with my latest escapade. Which is, I sold my house to Penelope, and moved me and the cats to a new home.
My Goodness, but I have a lot of stuff. Still unpacking and sorting thru things. But the cats are ecstatic! They now have over three times as much room, and all kinds of closets and cabinets to climb into.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky – once you are fully moved in, give us an update. 😉
Moving is tough. That is the time to throw most things away. I assume you didn’t make a drastic change in location.
Allan – moving is one of the great stessors.
The process of classifying anything, especially for “national security”, has become much like the boy who cried wolf. Nearly nobody believes it anymore, it has become an excuse for who-knows-what chicanery. Mr. Booker is making a point here, and it isn’t about Mr. Kavanaugh. The bureaucracy is out of control. Political points? BS!
KAVANAUGH’S CONCEPT OF ‘RELIGIOUS LIBERTY’
In his dissenting opinion in Priests for Life v. Health and Human Services, Judge Kavanaugh argued that requiring an organization to fill out a one-page form that would have exempted it from providing contraception coverage imposed a “substantial burden” on its free exercise of religion. He appears to feel keenly the anguish of priests and nuns living in a nation where women have a range of lawfully and medically supported health care options.
But in Garza v. Hargan, he thought it was no real burden for a minor, pregnant and in federal custody, to be denied access to the abortion she desperately wanted in order for the government to search for a sponsor, rather than arrange for her medical treatment directly.
In that same decision — thankfully slapped down by the full bench of the court on which he sat — Judge Kavanaugh characterized abortion as a “momentous life decision” and referred contemptuously to abortion rights as “abortion on demand.” That is precisely how “religious liberty” works today. You maximize the moral anguish of those whose religion and values you favor and minimize the rights and suffering of those you disfavor.
Judge Kavanaugh’s performance in his confirmation hearings served only to amplify these concerns. In answer to Mr. Cruz’s invitation to discuss “religious liberty,” Judge Kavanaugh spoke movingly about the suffering of those who were prevented from bringing their religion into “the public square.” But he had next to nothing to say about the benefits that have flowed to all of us from the many landmark decisions that have prevented religious groups from using the power of the state to impose their views. He endorsed the appeal to “history and tradition” in justifying the mixing of religion and government functions, but showed no awareness that such appeals invariably confer privilege on those religions best able to claim this history for themselves.
Edited from: “Whose Religious Liberty Is It Anyway?”
The New York Times, 9/9/18
Kavanaugh’s concept of ‘religious liberty’ sounds like ‘religious tyranny’.
You’re making a dig at Catholics there. That’s ok, no groups are above criticism, can we agree on that?
Groups all aim to game the system for their own benefit. That is, if they have any sophisticated sense of their own well being and strategy, they do.
Maybe that’s why Jewish lawyers have packed the ACLU for its entire existence and increasingly excluded Christian religious observances from the public sphere under the rubric of free exercise and separation: because they represent a historically persecuted minority religion, and they feel a special peril at the sight of a manger or a cross, fearing that it may at any moment break into a auto-da-fe or pogrom.
It it antisemitic of me to say so? I suspect some would call me that but I also suspect that I am stating the obvious truth. Is the truth antisemitic?
It’s hard to discuss such things when there is always a knee jerk reaction.
“Réflexions sur la question juive” by JP Sartre is next on my syllabus of reading on such things, I invite anyone that has read it to comment. I haven’t read it yet. Over the years, I have read a lot of supposedly “antisemitic” tracts however, so I thought i would try some anti-antisemitic ones of note as well.
I would also point out that established religion, is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is disestablisment necessarily a good one. The secular Soviet Union and PRC have been responsible for tens of millions of avoidable civilian deaths and their record does not compare especially well to states with established religions.
If we further limit our list to countries which have Christian sects as established religions (omitting various nations officially espousing Islam), the dubious peril of “religious persecution by the state” because an even more dubious bogeyman:
Catholic:
Argentina
Bolivia
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Liechtenstein
Malta
Monaco
Some cantons of Switzerland (state religion):
Appenzell Innerrhoden (declared “religion of the people of Appenzell Innerrhoden”)
Aargau
Basel-Country
Bern
Glarus
Graubünden
Nidwalden
Schwyz
Thurgau
Uri
Vatican City (Theocracy)
Old Catholic
Jurisdictions which recognize an Old Catholic church as their state religion:
Some cantons of Switzerland (Christian Catholic Church):
Aargau
Basel-Country
Bern
Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdictions which recognize one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches as their state religion:
Greece (Greek Orthodox Church)
Finland (Finnish Orthodox Church)
Georgia Georgian Orthodox Church
Protestant
Lutheran
Denmark (Church of Denmark)
Iceland (Church of Iceland)
Norway (Church of Norway)
Finland (Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland)
Presbyterian
Scotland (Church of Scotland) established by law
Scotland assorted Free Presbyterian churches, unestablished.
Reformed
Jurisdictions which recognize a Reformed church as their state religion:
Some cantons of Switzerland (Swiss Reformed Church):
Aargau
Basel-Country
Bern
Glarus
Graubünden
Schwyz
Thurgau
Uri
Zürich
Other christian
Zambia
Samoa
Solomon Islands
Anglican
England (Church of England)
“Is the truth antisemitic?”
No, but sometimes stupidity can be interpreted as anti-semitism and sometimes people simply wish to be anti-semitic.
I am not a lover of the ACLU of today and not always a lover of the ACLU in years past. They became the defenders of some deplorable groups and not just once. Early on they did represent some important and good issues. Those Jewish lawyers you talk about took specific ideas and applied them not only to Christians but also to Jews. You left that part out. The best known example is perhaps the Skoie Illinois march by Nazi’s. Comission and and omission can both be serious errors.
In any event have a Merry Christmas or a Happy Hanukah or whatever your preference. It’s my belief that the ACLU went too far in its attempts to remove religion from sight, but it wasn’t a Jewish plot. You bedroom is secure.
The above was to Mr. Kurtz.
yes Allan, I know about the Skokie thing, you are right, that was a consistent application of principle.
the bigger issue that divides the ACLU between civil liberterians of genuine goodwill and leftist ideologues is anything that has to do with “civil rights’ meaning the effort to elevate non-whites to the white population’s presumed position of “supremacy”
hence they get behind a lot of things that are patently the state judging and interfering with ideas, so long as it’s branded civil rights: such as “hate crime enhancements”
moreover they have been dabbling in the LGBTQ culture wars recently which is super far afield from the 1st amendment but i guess they are smarter than me. I can’t figure that one out.
PS did you know that one of the prominent “nazis” of the famed Skokie march permit squabble was actually Jewish? or at least his dad said so
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1243&dat=19700424&id=pgBYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=E_cDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2335,3773716
As with the great chess master Bobbie FIsher, one is often unsure what to make of such stories
Mr. Kurtz, as a whole the Jewish population stands on the left side of the aisle and yes I heard that story and a whole bunch of others where persons born as Jews have turned on their own. That has happened with Muslims, Christians and every other group. You do realize that there are prominent Jews that are on the right, don’t you? There are black Jews as well in case you are unaware.
Falashas? aware but not sure how they are significant of anything at hand.
I know some right wing Jews in person that I like, but, i have to admit most of the prominent “neoconservatives” I rather do not like.
Right now my favorite Jewish “Right winger” would be Ron Unz. I have heard a lot of good things about Murray Rothbard and find much of what he wrote, charming, but I do not hold with his political theories.
Some Jews who get branded as antisemites are admirable in my mind, such as, Saul of Tarsus, whom we Christians call Saint Paul. He is often called the archetype of the “self hating Jew” if not Jesus Himself. Jewish people are free to think whatever they do, of these figures, and it is generally not very complimentary, to put it nicely. In the meantime, I have my own opinions.
Here are several jews that have been called antisemites I also like to read occasionally: Noam Chomsky, Israel Shahak, Norman Finkelstein. Usually they are just in trouble for criticizing aspects of Israeli policy. Those three are leftists. But, very smart, and perceptive. I like Sy Hersh too.
I welcome cooperation by Jewish American persons of goodwill in whatever endeavors are worthy and timely. But, I do not shrink from criticizing anybody because they are Jewish. If a Jew can criticize a Gentile, then I feel turnabout is fair play too.
I really like to talk to Jewish people, especially about politics, philosophy, society and religion. I find that they are willing to have conversations that scare off others. I have a lawyer friend who is a liberal Jew and we have pined away many hours that we could have spent working talking about the hellenistic era and many subjects relating to Jewish history and religion. Maybe he liked it that a gentile had even heard of Amalek? He took it upon himself to explain “the ban” to me from the Jewish theological perspective, and I enjoyed the conversation.
I do not agree that Jews are all bad, or genetically evil. That’s the point at which I would differentiate my opinions from those who are called antisemites. I do not strain myself to be accepted by anyone in life. People are free to think badly of me and many do. I’m a humble person of no great significance.
I also like to read occasionally: Noam Chomsky, Israel Shahak, Norman Finkelstein. Usually they are just in trouble for criticizing aspects of Israeli policy.
Finkelstein is Chomsky’s prat boy. And they’re not ‘in trouble’ for ‘criticizing aspects of Israeli policy’. They’re ‘in trouble’ for trafficking in smears and advocating a sovereign republic be liquidated. Finkelstein also has some abiding personality problems and an absolutely ruined non-career as a serious researcher.
Well, I think they advocate a one state solution, as they call it, and that would be a democratic majority for Arab Muslims, which would spell deep trouble for a lot of Israelis. I am not sure they would agree that is a liquidation. Has the end of Apartheid in RSA been a liquidation? Not yet, but, check in again in a year, who knows where that will end up.
I don’t advocate any such thing, but I do not have a dog in that game. Personally I have no problem with the Jewish state. Nor do I have a problem with its neighbors. I am an American and what concerns i have related to my ancestors start on the West side of the Hellespont. So, just thinking about political ideas in general: “one man one vote” is a principle that a lot of people applied to “herrenvolk democracies” in Jim Crow South or the former RSA, which were considered oppressive and many advocated they be reorganized accordingly. Which they were. But maybe some of the same people who so believed, do not find that applicable to Israel and its contiguous occupied territories. For whatever reasons. And yet some differ. The matter should be a subject for reasonable difference of opinion.
I also understand that there is a large number on the Israeli left that espouses similar views to Chomsky and Finkelstein on the subject. But I would not know. I have never been there myself and suspect it would not be a good choice for my next vacation.
Well, I think they advocate a one state solution, as they call it, and that would be a democratic majority for Arab Muslims, which would spell deep trouble for a lot of Israelis. I am not sure they would agree that is a liquidation. Has the end of Apartheid in RSA been a liquidation? Not yet, but, check in again in a year, who knows where that will end up.
You’re in a hole. Quit digging.
” I have never been there myself and suspect it would not be a good choice for my next vacation.”
I don’t know why you would think Israel is not a good choice for a vacation. It is very exciting, historic, represents three religions and has done amazing things out of a very tiny strip of desert. If that doesn’t sound interesting try China especially the south. It too is amazing in a different way. The best of all, however, in my opinion is the USA.
Right now my favorite Jewish “Right winger” would be Ron Unz. I
Really? Gilad Atzmon hasn’t come within your field of vision? Unz is his generation’s Ramsay Clark – nuttier every year. Now he’s added Kennedy assassination rubbish to his product line, 9/11 truther rubbish, and is now a conduit for a harmonic convergence of lunacy with his latest offering – Kennedy was assassinated consequent to a Zionist conspiracy.
Well I guess I havent kept up with Unz as closely as you have LOL
I have read a lot of others but kept the list short. It’s the kind of list that stirs up more conversation than I can handle now that i am old
“Falashas? aware but not sure how they are significant of anything at hand.”
Their significance may have no meaning to you but they exist.
Take note of your habit of injecting religion where it was totally unecessary along with the frequent highlighting of one particular religion.
“I know some right wing Jews in person that I like, but, i have to admit most of the prominent “neoconservatives” I rather do not like.”
Is it their Jewishness or is it their politics? You seem to mix the two up and that causes people to wonder about what you are really saying. A good number of Jews are “neoconservatives”. There are many more Jews that voted for Obama. Some of your likes and dislikes seem to have a religious or Jewish reference. One has to wonder why. Do you know some left wing Christians that you like? Did you ever say that or did you say I know some left wingers I like.
” Jewish people are free to think whatever they do, of these figures, and it is generally not very complimentary, to put it nicely. In the meantime, I have my own opinions.”
Except for Jesus who was a Jew most Jews probably don’t even know the persons you may be talking about yet you assume their replies would not be “very complimentary”. In any event such actions aren’t appropriate whether one is Jewish, Christian or otherwise unless one had a specific rationale.
You brought up a couple of names that were Jewish. They are not disliked because of their views. They are disliked because of their distorted or untrue views. Some might say the viewpoint is debateable and that is true, but take note if you look deep enough one finds they will not respond to a lot of those debateable points that show a different side and some of those points are not debateable but factual. Some people read them and neglect to read the actual history on the subject and their viewpoints might seem anti-semitic when they are actually ignorant. To lessen the heat of religion, just think of what Noam Chomsky said about Cambodia while its people were being slaughtered and how his words were repeated as gospel. He is no political expert. He is a linguist and traded his fame in linguistics for a more profitable pursuit, political theory. There is no direct link between linguistics and political theory.
” If a Jew can criticize a Gentile, then I feel turnabout is fair play too.”
You should criticize anyone you disagree with if you chose. However, when the person is Jewish you frequently insert the word Jew. I haven’t heard anyone disagreeing with that Christian Senator or other Christian politician.
Take note of your statement: “Maybe that’s why Jewish lawyers have packed the ACLU” Let’s say they were Chistian, would you then say ‘Maybe that’s why Christian lawyers have packed the ACLU’? I don’t think so which makes me wonder if blacks packed the ACLU would you say ‘Maybe that’s why black lawyers have packed the ACLU’? That is a problem.
“I do not agree that Jews are all bad, or genetically evil. That’s the point at which I would differentiate my opinions from those who are called antisemites.”
That only indicates the degree of anti-semitism. I don’t find you particularily objectionable even with some of your statements. You probably were brought up a certain way and in a certain environment and at times let your biases stray into fiction. As I have indicated before a lot of seemingly anti-semitic comments might just be due to ignorance.
A good number of Jews are “neoconservatives”.
No, they’re not. The ‘neoconservatives’ were a collection of quondam officials, academics, and opinion journalists who collected around a set of letterhead organizations and small circulation publications. Most of those people are retired or deceased and the very youngest of them was born around about 1962. There was no popular ‘neoconservative’ tendency. I think the membership of the Committee for the Free World (which dissolved in 1990) was around about 3,000. Nor are the residual corps still writing trading in anything out of the ordinary. They’ve been mainstream Republicans, for the most part. Some of them had a meltdown over Donald Trump, but so did David French, Ross Douthat, Erick Erickson, and Patrick Frey.
Irving Kristol, richard perle, paul wolfowitz, michael ledeen, scoot libby, krauthammer, stephen bryen, david frum, robert kagan, David Mursmer, Dov Zakheim, Norman Podhoretz, Elliott Abrams, Frederick Kagan,
Alan Dershowitz, Daniel Pipes, I dont know it seemed like a lot to me. But I am not an expert on this.
And certainly a lot of them worked for Reagan so maybe there was nothing “neo” about them, I understand
and they’re hardly all the same. I enjoyed Dersh’s book “The Vanishing Jew” which touched on some of these cultural subjects
Irving Kristol, richard perle, paul wolfowitz, michael ledeen, scoot libby, krauthammer, stephen bryen, david frum, robert kagan, David Mursmer, Dov Zakheim, Norman Podhoretz, Elliott Abrams, Frederick Kagan,
Alan Dershowitz, Daniel Pipes,
What’s the point of this list?
1. Alan Dershowitz (b. 1938) is a law professor and liberal Democrat, he’s just a man of the older generation and retains certain fixed principles which prevent him from going into a meltdown about DJT.
2. David Frum (b. 1960) is a lapsed lawyer / journeyman writer / opinion journalist. He re-invents himself every few years. He presented himself as a libertarian ca. 1994, as an apostle of the War on Terror ca. 2003, and as the recrudescence of Rockefeller Republicanism ca. 2009.
3. Norman Podhoretz (b. 1930) is a literary critic turned political commentator. He was editor of Commentary for 35 years, a publication which is slowly expiring. He’s 88 years old and has been semi-retired since 1995.
4. Irving Kristol (b. 1920 d. 2009) was editor of Encounter and later of The Public Interest, as well as a founder of The National Interest. He also had a column in the Wall Street Journal. He retired 17 years ago and died 9 years ago. His wonkish low-circulation publication folded in 2003. Mostly, he provided a forum for discussions of social policy.
5. Charles Krauthammer (b. 1950 d. 2018) was an opinion journalist employed over the years by The New Republic, the Washington Post Writers Group, PBS, and Fox News. He quite briefly held a couple of subaltern positions in the Carter Administration and campaign.
6. Daniel Pipes (b. 1949) is a historian specializing in the Arab world. He’s the most marginal kind of academic, taking a salary from a succession of thinly financed NGOs. He edits a low circulation quasi-scholarly journal. His topical commentary is focused on this one discrete set of issues.
7. Robert Kagan (b. 1958) is a peripheral academic (generally on the staff of some policy shop) cum opinion journalist
8. Frederic Kagan (b. 1970) is his younger brother. Pretty much the same career, but with more of a scholarly bent.
9. Michael Ledeen (b. 1941) has cycled through so many positions it’s hard to keep track of them. Primarily, he’s on contract at one or another policy shop. He’s held public sector positions, but not at all recently and he’s never been a line administrator.
10. Richard Perle (b. 1941) has had a career similar to Ledeen’s, but with more forays into the business world. His public sector positions have been limited to stints as a congressional aide and spots on advisory committees.
11. Lewis Libby (b. 1950) was a lawyer who has held a series of staff / brain trust positions in the State Department, the Defense Department, and the White House. These were 3d echelon positions. The man was financially ruined and disbarred consequent to bogus criminal charges filed against him by the U.S. Attorney in Chicago.
12. Paul Wolfowitz Ib. 1943) held subcabinet positions in the Reagan Administration (at the State Department) and the 2d Bush Administration (at the Defense Department).
13. Stephen Breyen (b. 1942) has been employed both by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and in a fairly consequential position in the Defense Department (supervising export controls on technology).
14. Dov Zakheim (b. 1948) has held subcabinet positions in the Defense Department during the Reagan Administration and the 2d Bush Administration. He had some sort of planning position during his first stint and was the departments comptroller during his second.
15. David Mursmer does not exist. Ancestry.com finds no such person in any of their city directory or public records databases.
DSS, it appears as if there are a number of Jews that are prominent neoconservatives but that is Kurtz’s argument. My following statement said “There are many more Jews that voted for Obama.”. Jews are more prominent than their numbers would suggest, so there are a good number of Jews that won Nobel Prizes and a good number of Jews that won Pulitzer Prizes and a good number of Jews that are scholars in the medical field. The proportions probably remain somewhat similar.
A lot of Jews have had meltdowns over Trump where only a minority voted for him.
I’m not sure where you were heading with your argument when you were parsing my words.
You know many Americans consider it impolite to discuss politics and religion at all.
But I think it’s kind of boring not to do so
BTW Martin Heidegger thought that there was a direct line between linguistics and politics, but unlike me, he really was a nazi!
Like Chomsky, his work has its merits, whatever his political digressions may have been.
Cheers
Mr. Kurtz, I agree with you. It is more stimulating to discuss these subjects but acting in a racist fashion is more than just impolite. It’s racist. I don’t care if it is black, Jewish, Catholic etc. Discuss as you please but recognize when the language becomes racist.
“Like Chomsky, his work has its merits”
It’s hard to read Chomsky which I have because so many things he has said aren’t true. Lies mixed with truth like sour milk mixed with fresh milk leaves a bad taste in my mouth. What are the merits of drinking sour milk?
Kavanaugh is Catholic. There is a sense that he will pursue what is good for Catholics. That’s what somebody above implied. I have no problem with that assertion, it is plausible, even if it is a dig at Catholics. So I was not inserting this topic where it does not exist. It fully subsists in all these questions about top justices, if not explicitly than implicitly.
I also have no problem thinking that Scalia being Catholic has influenced him, or that Ginsberg and Kagan and Breyer who are Jewish and that has influenced them.
I do not consider it inappropriate for religious or ethnic groups to freely associate and think about group strategy and competition, within legal bounds. It would be nice if we could “all get along” but social life often is a struggle.
In a democracy people are going to look and talk about group identities. I personally hope “my groups” have as much zeal as those with whom they compete. I am not going to apologize much for that, even though I know it kind of annoys my individualistic thinking patriotic American idealists.
It will be a real fracas the day they nominate a Muslim. Surely they are looking for a Muslim article III justice to fill that AA slot. There are a few I think, not sure how many. Boy that will be the day of a real dustup confirmation.
I read that Maimonedes said if Jew is forced to convert, better to espouse Islam than Christianity, because Christians are idolators, but Muslims are not. I wonder if that holds in the current day?
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-views-on-islam/
Mr Kurtz, everyone can be accused of having an agenda. Congratulations. “Kavanaugh is Catholic. There is a sense that he will pursue what is good for Catholics.”. I think past actions are a better predictor of these things than that type of logic. But I think this is an important point in how we should think of Supreme Court Justices. They are supposed to interpret the Law with respect to the Constitution etc. without adding in their personal motivations or their consideration of the outcomes. Congress is supposed to legislate, not them. Therefore, some of the Supreme Court Justices of today do not sufficiently meet that reasonable requirement IMO.
That’s why I left the ACLU.
I’m still a member of the NRA, but I’m angry about Oliver North.
Why does it bother you that the ACLU would defend “deplorable groups?” That’s exactly why I used to support them…that was a very long time ago. Wasn’t that the point of the ACLU? To defend the rights of the deplorable from the upset ninnies?
Ivan, I expected the ACLU to represent deplorable groups that were facing first amendment rights problems. What I said was “I am not a lover of the ACLU of today and not always a lover of the ACLU in years past. They became the defenders of some deplorable groups and not just once. Early on they did represent some important and good issues.” Perhaps I should have been more clear. I understand their representation of deplorable groups but for some groups it was beginning to seem as if the ACLU was their house lawyer and they were not defending certain other rights that IMO were being violated. As they would say, they have only so many resources. My response was to spread them around.
It it antisemitic of me to say so? I suspect some would call me that but I also suspect that I am stating the obvious truth. Is the truth antisemitic?
Yes, it is anti-semitic to say so. You claim, without evidence, relying only on the alleged obviousness of your assertion, that the ACLU’s jewish lawyers oppose christian religious liberty on the basis of their own, again alleged, irrational fears of impending pogroms, as opposed to coming to any decisions based on actual legal analysis. Like most anti-semitic arguments, it’s nothing but a dumb conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories always seem obvious to people who are pre-conditioned. By the way, the ACLU has no authority to create law, they simply make decisions about whether they will represent particular clients. Even if they decide, for reasons fair or foul, not to represent a particular client, christian organizations are not without resources to find adequate legal representation.
I say this as an atheist who is a staunch supporter of religious liberty against PC encroachments.
Well Jay you are free to think whatever you like.
you are also free to put words in my mouth and set up what I say as some kind of straw man that you can knock down.
however, Jews have been very involved in the ACLU. Disproportionately so by any factual standard. This is just fact.
Normally a fact that Jews often are very proud of so read this for example
https://www.haaretz.com/1.4717656
this article describes how the ADL and ACLU parted company on the RFRA. That was certainly a topic in the hearings btw. ……..and it would not have been a worthy article to include in the Israeli newspaper if everyone did not fully understand that ACLU has long been staffed by Jewish lawyers
“Jewish Community vs. ACLU: The American Jewish community has always been a driving force in the country’s civil rights movement. From the great battles of the `60s for racial desegregation, through the fight for gay liberation, and up to the war to preserve the separation of church and state.” –Nathan Guttman
Why can a Jewish person brag about this but at the same time if I pose the observation as a critique, suddenly, the same factual underpinnings are now called antisemitic? Seems unfair to me but hey whatever
wiki says there is a survey that indicates about half of american jews doubt the existence of god versus about 10-15% of other religious groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_atheists_and_agnostics
the matter is complicated. not all jews like the aclu’s shenanigans
articles.latimes.com/2004/jun/17/opinion/oe-klinghoffer17
what mr klinghoffer does not say about “atheist activist Michael Newdow” is that this atheist activist as are many other atheist activists is actually of jewish ancestry. that would have subtracted from the point of his editorial.
you can read a jewish source about Newdow if you think this subject is just conspiracy theory. it’s complicated Jay, read up on it and spare your insults for someone who will be cowed by them.
jta.org/2004/03/16/life-religion/features/jews-give-nod-to-under-god
One might say that another famous Jew was an atheist of note, though not American, and that would be Karl Mark. But, I find a lot of what Marx said to be very interesting and informative, nonetheless. Don’t be so touchy, there is a lot to learn out there and things are complicated.
I didn’t attribute to anything you didn’t explicitly say.
Jay. I think I understand why you say what you did, but observe: the word irrational is not in my text., You inserted it. that is your characterization, not a quote.
i certainly did not explicitly say it. in fact I further i explained how from the Jewish perspective it is indeed rational to fear Christian pogroms emerging from state sponsorship of religion. I do not agree with them, and I do not subscribe to the same concerns but I did not call them “irrational.” You are projecting.
Here is where the easy name calling of “antisemitic” deprives the accused of the courtesy of being fairly interpreted. When a group gains power, it grasps the tools that were previously out of reach. So, some folks can now denounce other Americans as antisemites, as easily as the Jewish Dreyfus was falsely made out to be a spy in France.
But, I am no Dreyfus, strictly a private person of no significance at all. So no big deal. I regard this as a pleasant conversation, I can take a little criticism.
Jay, at least you did not fabricate a quote entirely, and claim that I “watch hannity and bag his balls” as Mark M falsely did.
you say Jay
“again alleged, irrational fears of impending pogroms”
compare that to the text of my comment:
“Maybe that’s why Jewish lawyers have packed the ACLU for its entire existence and increasingly excluded Christian religious observances from the public sphere under the rubric of free exercise and separation: because they represent a historically persecuted minority religion, and they feel a special peril at the sight of a manger or a cross, fearing that it may at any moment break into a auto-da-fe or pogrom.”
the word IRRATIONAL does not appear in my quote. you might say that I used the words “special peril” but I did not call it irrational. while I admit that my comment was cheeky, excuse me if you did not like the tone of it– the word irrational was not mine, just yours.
don’t put words in my mouth.
the fear is perhaps rational. we know the jews have suffered. there is no forgetting it! Hollywood would not allow it for one second.
of course other people have suffered too but if one points this out, then, that too is “antisemitic”
I wonder at times why American school children are not introduced to the great tragedy that befell the Chinese people in 49-51 when way over ten million died (36 million maybe?) of a famine induced by a wicked and preposterous agricultural policy dictated by Mao and his communist regime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
that’s allowed to be forgotten. just Chinese people.. nothing special eh?
or we could talk about the Ukraine. Second thought, let’s not! I might end up denounced like Solzhenitsyn.
Well, maybe the issue is that the victims were not selected for religious differences. Ok, then what about some of the other horrific religious slaughters of the 20th century? How about those Turks, offing the Armenians like flies, and kicking out the Greeks? Muslim sectarians versus Orthodox Christians in both cases. Perpetuating an older sectarian conflict that has gone one for as long as there was Islam. But, most Americans are clueless and have never even heard of Byzantium.
I hope the NYTimes didn’t stretch and twist itself so much it broke. I can’t tell if it is your summary or the NYTimes that lacks sophistication. Probably both.
Peter:
Priests for Life is a pro life organization. One of their main methods of protesting abortion is to show photos of aborted fetuses. Obviously, being Catholic priests, they also do not support premarital sex or contraception.
The contraception mandate required employers to provide insurance that covered all 26 forms of birth control, including those considered abortifacients, as well as sterilization. Clearly, religious organization employers who were against such procedures would not want to be involved in providing them to employees.
Obama had planned to provide regulations that would exempt religious employers, but declined to do so because doing so “would lead to more employees having to pay out of pocket for contraceptive services, thus making it less likely that they would use contraceptives, which would undermine the benefits [of requiring the coverage]. . . . Including these employers within the scope of the exemption would subject their employees to the religious views of the employer, limiting access to contraceptives, thereby inhibiting the use of contraceptive services and the benefits of preventive care.”
However, this is a Catch 22 because the employers are now subjected to becoming involved in the personal choices of their employees.
The only workaround that Obama came up with was allowing religious employers to sign a form, stating that their insurance carrier would provide the objectionable prescriptions and procedures to staff, but the employer shared premium for that part of the coverage would to be included.
What Priests for Life objected to was being forced to provide their employees with insurance that provided abortifacients, contraception, and sterilization. Even though the feds were going to help with the cost of it, religious organizations were still being forced to provide the coverage that provided it.
The government has made a simple problem really complicated. Here is my solution: Remove employers from the health insurance industry altogether. All health insurance policies should be individually purchased. That also does away with tiered caste systems of insurance policyholders – those with employer policies and those with individual polices. Make them all individual. That would also spread out the risk pool.
In addition, bring back the free market. Let insurers provide what their customers want. If customers want a policy that does not cover contraception, there would be one for them. There would be one for those who prefer naturopaths, chiropractors, and other health minded whole body methods. There would be catastrophic plans for those who just want protection from going bankrupt after a medical diagnosis or unforeseen accident. There should be a plan for everyone. And then it really is none of the employer’s beeswax what their employee’s health care coverage consists of.
Expand the Health Savings Accounts, and other cost sharing plans that stops the spiraling cost that occurs whenever a third party pays for a service.
I have this all figured out. Now why won’t my phone ring from Congress?
Karen, I like your ideas. They’re very good, and very common sense. (That’s why your phone is not ringing).
Karen S – I completely disagree with you plan for getting insurance. One of the perks of the jobs is how much health insurance they will offer and how much the company pays for it. I have been with companies that paid for all the premiums and for other that allowed you a choice of several insurers to select from, allowing you to decide your needs. The one my wife has now is a one-size-fits-all “Cadillac” policy from her company. With my pre-existings I would be uninsurable.
Paul, you are totally wrong. Employer sponsored insurance is one of the reasons we face many of the problems we face today. A person insured at work got a discount. Why? Because the insurers knew that sick people lose their jobs and end up in the individual market paying much higher premiums. Obamacare as predicted started a death spiral when it was passed. Individual insurance means the person is paying for illness that is not apparent. For example a person with individual insurance who is totally healthy suddenly has a heart attack. All those costs were figured into his and everyone else’s premiums. In the past one wasn’t thrown off their insurance because of illness but over long periods of time death spirals of specific plans could develop. There are ways to prevent those things from happening. Nothing is perfect, but using insurance appropriately gets close.
Allan – Obamacare only works if the young are part of the insurance market. Didn’t you listen to Gruber?
By charging the young more than the actuarial value they received meant that the young would game the system in an attempt not to buy insurance.
Gruber said it right about how Obamacare got passed: “lack of transparency” and “stupidity of the American voter”. Heck, we have a lot of stupid people Gruber was talking about right here on this list. If you were one of them I will of course change the word from stupid to a bit naive.
Paul C. SCHULTE…….just read about your strokes. Bless your heart. You are impressive….Hang in there, kiddo.
Cindy Bragg – I have had to make modifications to my life and lifestyle. I have done that before. Western Civilization did not end. 😉 And I like to think of myself as too old to be a “kidoo” 😉 However, thank you for your kind thoughts.
(thumbs up!)
Paul,
Sorry but my PC is working a lot like my brain this week & is having trouble cutting & pasting.
That said, All Insurance plans are Ponzi Scams. IE: IF everyone wrecked their cars & had their houses burnt down could the insur. Co’s pay the claims, no they’d be BK’d.
On a different angle on Insur.., Let’s say you could buy a life insur. policy & the rest of us could place insur. bets on how long you lived.
No doubt at some point the pot of insur. money would get so huge that someone betting against you would take you out.
IE: My Point Insurance Does Not Reduce Risk on the Insured It Massively Increases the Risk to th Insured!!!! X a 1,000000+
Anyway,
Allen: “September 10, 2018 at 9:59 PM
Paul, you are totally wrong. Employer sponsored insurance is one of the reasons we face many of the problems we face today”
Employer sponsored insur. backed up with Fed Control is Unconstitutional!!!
“ERISA”
Yes foolish people think they get a discount but they Give Up their Rights and pay an extra large price for it!!
Phk that Crap. We were born into this Commie/Nazi Bullsh!t, ERISA.
BTW: We here learned a bit more about health care insur this year, around +- 2 mil in so far & 3.5 months left. Damn lucky I had decades of biz experience enough to to explain how I was going to make them attempt to piss up a rope.
What a phk’in mess most people don’t know nor have the smarts to know what to say/do.
So onward , Fed Reserve System, IRS, Direct Elected US Senators without State Reps approval, Civil War outcome giving up States Rights, Mulberry vs Madison, etc., all Unconstitutional & heading straight to Commie/Nazi Authoritarian type Hell!
Oky1 – insurance is based on actuary tables (thank you Lloyd’s of London). For instance, my insurance carrier rewards me financially for staying healthy. The healthier I am, the less they pay out, the more they save for their stockholders. The fact that you think standard insurance (not Obamacare) is a Ponzi scheme, shows you do not understand the insurance industry.
Health Insurance is really a gambling scheme, you are gambling you will get seriously ill and they are gambling you will not. If you are with the company long enough, even if you have been losing all along, when you start winning, they can afford it. Life insurance is the same, except you are betting on your death prior to paying off the policy.
Paul, you sound as if you are on Medicare. If so that is closer to prepaid healthcare than classical insurance. If you are in a Medicare Advantage plan that too is prepaid though some more than others.
As far as non Medicare insurers, they are hybrids depending on the insurer unless one is on an individual plan. Individual plans are distorted as well. We don’t have a free market health insurance industry so it doesn’t function in the way classical insurance is supposed to function.
“Health Insurance is really a gambling scheme, you are gambling you will get seriously ill and they are gambling you will not.”
Classical insurance is based on unpredictability and is used to spread the risk so in that sense it is not gambling and could be considerred the opposite.
Allan – I am on United Heathcare.
I assume you are on your wife’s insurance or is it a United Healthcare Medicare Advantage plan? You were a teacher so I would guess the latter.
Allan – I am on my wife’s policy, which is why I am trying to convince her to continue working until she is 85, I also have Medicare A, which I am required to take.
Paul, when your wife stops working you will end up in Part B. Depending on location and the type of insurance your wife has been offered you may be better off or worse off. Hard to say because the variability is extreme. At the present it sounds like it is a better deal for you. Do you pay a premium to United (actually the employer) for your coverage? Governmental employee or just a company that provided very good insurance?
Allan – I would probably lose my doctor and the benefits would be cut by two-thirds, plus I would have to pick up an additonal policy to cover the donut hole, as they call it.
The donut hole is Medicare Part D and that is a big deal. Aside from the donut hole and medications do you still believe your benefits would be cut by 2/3 or even 1/3? Why? Is it the deductible $183 or co pay?
Allan – therapy visits would be cut, etc.
“Allan – therapy visits would be cut, etc.”
Paul, that is likely true if you have a good plan. Many single payer / Medicare for all advocates don’t realize that a number of years ago Medicare substantially cut many services to those that are actually ill and need more care. Physical therapy was one of the things cut. What else would be cut that you know of?
Allan – my plan pays for chiropractic visits and wellness visits.
Paul, I believe Medicare pays chiropractic and wellness.
How paying for wellness would be considered insurance is beyond me.
O M G! HIPAA ALERT! AVERT THINE EYES! LOCK THE CABINETS!
plus in gambling you are seeking a desired and literally favorable outcome
one does not seek to get sick. most sane folks dont that is
there is a statistical analysis of risk that is the main resemblance to gambling. that’s as far as the analogy stands up, really
On average in both gambling and insurance $1 in means less than $1 out. Health insurance is meant to offset large expenses that might cause harm to one’s financial well being. Gambling activates the pleasure centers of some while they stupidly throw their money away.
i find cards a relaxing pastime and can gamble with an expected and actual rate of loss which is less than what i used to spend on other pastimes. i took cards up late in life and don’t regret it.
some folks have a problem with it, some folks have a problem with booze too. i laid off booze late in life and dont regret that either,
Mr Kurtz – my understanding is that your liver will recover. 🙂
Karen, I am glad to hear at least one person that has a real understanding of the problems behind third party payer (employer) as opposed to individual insurance or group insurance based on individual preference. Tax favoritism towards employer sponsored healthcare should never have occured and we need to end it.
Allan, agreed. Employers can complete for candidates through other benefit offerings. It doesn’t have to be just health insurance. For example, contributions to employees’ HSAs, which would assist in the payment of the employee’s own, specifically selected, insurance policy premiums.
Foxtrot, some larger employers can offer a better policy, but it must be voluntary where the employee can use the tax benefits elsewhere. The employer also has to make it so that a sick employee isn’t handled differently than a sick employee receiving individual benefits. I don’t want to see selective dumping.
I was disappointed by your statement that “Harris effectively accused Kavanaugh of perjury, collaboration against special counsel Robert Mueller, and other unsupported misdeeds”. It was effective rhetorically but entirely ineffective to any reasonable standard of proof. Making claims against your sworn enemy but being unable to back them up with proof or any substantial source is what Kamala was doing and that is essentially a LIE and a SMEAR. Intelligent people should be aware of difference between “effectively accusing” and “smearing”.
Intelligent people should be aware of difference between “effectively accusing” and “smearing”.
However the target consumer for the Harris and Booker theatrics are their Democrat constituency. They gobble up this tripe and go begging for seconds. If they had any intelligence, they would have lost their appetite for the Democrats years ago, well at least when Jonathan Gruber told them just how stupid and gullible they really were.
Democrats seem to have very short term memory.
SBG
You are exactly right. Did Harris have any one particular in mind about who at Kassowitz Kavanaugh might have talked to about the Mueller investigation? If you’re any thing like me you spent the whole weekend waiting for the other shoe to drop. So, I feel pretty secure in concluding that the whole thing was a stupid fishing expedition and Kavanaugh was right to express dismayed confusion over the question.
Here’s Cory on the Oprah Winfrey Network & said, “Democracy is Not a Spectator Sport.”
Cory won’t comment on what happened to the $100 million gift that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg gave to fix Newark schools when he was Mayor….Poof, gone.
Cory Booker is the “greatest self righteous show man on earth”, every opportunity is a show for him, his appetite to perform is staged and contrived. Like a paper shadow showman he performs to a likewise paper shadow audience.
Who is he kidding? Politics is blood sport and the cheering crowds of voters are in the Coliseum roaring for the next mauling.
This is nothing more than the unpowerful whining when having to go through an exercise with a pre-ordained outcome. The Republicans did it. Democrats are doing it. It is human nature. If anyone wants to compare Republicans with Democrats compare how the Republican Congress and Senate performed during the Obama administration, holding America hostage to oppose Obama, regardless of the issue, in McConnell’s own words, “regardless of whether or not it is good for America, if it comes from the White House, we will be against it.”
Isaac YOU SAY McConnell said that . What is your source?
Issac continuously demonstrates a lack of credibility.
Not only do I disagree with JT on the documents as there is an extensive record of his bench activity but I think that some of the Democrats disgraced the Senate.
Documents:
How does positions taken as an advocate reflect judicial philosiphy? Obama’s lawyers took the position that ACA was not a tax, and then when it was covenient, that it was. The document request was another act of cheap histionics that did nothing to further anything but politicsl advantage.
Disgracing the Senate:
Did anyne get the impression they watching the world’s greatest deliberative body? Or just a fish market of warring hypocrites? We have heard how Trump should not attack our institutions when he criticizes individual bad actors. Anyone sho has ever made that argument should condemn Richard the chicken hearted Blumenthal for his repeated smearing of the Court as a partisan body, the repeated reference to outcomes as “favoring the powerful”. The Court is not here to reach a quota but to fairly resolve disputes within the law.
The final act in this undecorous farce was a United States Senator calling the Senate rules a sham. If that doesn’t dishonor the Senate, I fail to see what does.
One day, sooner or later, Donald Trump will leave office. We shall all have to deal with the consequences of the “resistance”.
This is always my thought, as well. Trump will not be serving forever. At some point we are going to have to deal with all of the damage and fallout from these pathetic lunatics. The lack of foresight on the part of both leadership and constituents is unnerving. There Are no words for it but ‘temper tantrum’, and it is sad beyond belief.
well said, please write more
I’m not sure how anyone can dishonor the Senate, an institution already devoid of honor.
Booker has a large ego, sadly, he is short on common sense and what is good for the nation.
What’s notable about Booker is that he’s capable of brazen fakery and he’s never called on it.
Bory Cooker’s modus operandi conjoins fraud to exhibitionism. Which is no surprise to anyone who has reviewed his career.
Cory so fierce
@varadmehta
Cory Booker: “I am not paying for these breadsticks.”
Waiter: “Sir, this is Olive Garden. Breadsticks are complimentary.”
Cory Booker: “I said, I am not paying for these breadsticks.”
—————————————————————
Replying to @varadmehta
Cory Booker: I’m going to put any thing I want on my plate.
Waiter: this is a buffet
Cory Booker:I said anything I want!
+10
Garland was highly qualified and should have been confirmed, just as Kavanaugh should be for the same reasons.
If a US Senator leaks or releases confidential documents to the public, he or she should be censured.
Of course that is not the reality of our political system. The Garland fiasco and the ridiculous Kavanaugh confirmation hearings are emblematic of why the whole system should be torn down and rebuilt. Something I am still hopeful Trump can bring about, however unwittingly.
In the meantime, the 2016 choice of the voters who checked the box for Trump in key states should be respected. The Democrats and never-Trumpers (including the Bush folks) started laying the groundwork to impeach Trump before he was even elected and before there were alleged grounds to do so. Therefore, all of the impeachment talk concerning Trump is transparently the product who just can’t live with the fact someone they loathe was elected fair and square.
You could see the same thing happening with Harris’ questioning of Kavanaugh. Trying to manufacture grounds for his future impeachment should he be confirmed.
The anti-Trumpers underestimate the emotion and resolve of the folks who had to take sh*t from everyone over their choice for president for a year, and had to listen to all of the crap dished out by Clapper and Hayden (stating that based on their in-the-know info based on their membership in the intelligence community Trump was a Putin operative), who are not about to stand for their 2016 votes being nullified for BS reasons.
I am a retired lawyer, and it makes my blood boil to even think about it.
Imagine the million or so folks who own guns (a lot of guns) for the stated reason that it is a curb on a tyrannical government. Those are not Obama supporters.
If Trump is removed from office except through the ballot box you will need tanks on the streets to restore order.
A convincing case might be made for a 25th amendment application. We shall see, although I consider it unlikely unless The Donald collapses in a fit of apoplexy.
A convincing case might be made for a 25th amendment
You’re projecting David. It’s time to change your Depends.
whatever candy-asz wrote that stupid editorial, or should I say, lent his anonymous approval to the cowardly treasonous ghost written NYT op-ed, (if there is such an official and it’s not just someone working in the mail sorting room)… that wussy would be the kind who actually might qualify to initiate a 25th amendment removal but clearly, IT AINT HAPPENIN so don’t get too excited over it David
Did Benson say, “…honorable men…?”
_______________________________
“I just asked 4 freshmen…”
“Now Washington state has quite a decent public school system and WSU students come from the upper ranks of their graduating classes.”
– David B. Benson
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
So, Benson, you are a parasitic public worker living off of the public dole? Who’d a thunk? Help me out here.
Can you pay taxes with taxes? Is it possible for workers paid with collected tax dollars to pay taxes with the tax dollars they just received? Can one pay taxes with taxes? So you don’t actually pay taxes, right?
Should a public worker who is paid by elected officials be allowed to vote for those elected officials?
Now you understand why the American Founders gave Americans a “…republic, if you can keep it,” Ben Franklin.
A republic is not one man, one vote democracy; it is representative governance “…in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote.”
The American Founders intended for criteria to be met by voters.
I doubt being on the public dole is a criterion.
___________________________________________________
Merriam Webster
Republic
b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
Garland was highly qualified and should have been confirmed,
No, he should not have been. No Democratic president has selected someone appropriate for the Court since 1962.
And tanks we may get. That would be a necessary precondition for “tearing it all down and starting over” anyways.
However, be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
What comes next will probably be worse.
In a century we will probably be ruled by artificial general intelligences and this will all seem like a quaint dream gone by.
Stephen: the comment about vote nullification, and rioting if the orange rodeo clown gets thrown out, shows are a Faux News junkie, so you are just regurgitating Hannity’s drivel.
I dont watch hannity nor “bag his balls” as your friend Mark M accused me;
but yes, you might be surprised how pissed off people get if this slow moving coup d’etat has its way. We shall see.
Umm, Cory, you DO know Spartacus was killed, don’t you?
and he was a killer. Cory Booker could not fight his way out of a wet paper bag.
He is no Spartacus.
Nor are the US Senators much like the Roman ones except perhaps in their decadence and corruption.
Off topic: I learned a new word, “diel”. “Diurnal” is more common.
That’s because two urns are better than one.
So Boo Kartus prepares his friends for the upcoming battle and mulls over how he will make a moment so great the city will appoint him Mayuor. Who knows perhaps more. He gave several speeches to include his troops and then started off to the city gates. Only to find just one old itinerant pedlar hawking lox, bagels and gafe or as they called it back in his home country kafe.
“Old Man where is the fighting?”
“What fighting? Oh that. they called it off about mid morning Everyone went home.”
“Well I’m here to announce we shall win this fight as we are great heroes!” And off they went self importantly.
“Who are those fools?”
“Who knows gate guard I think they might be politikos.”
“What is that??”
“People who show up four hours too late and a drachma short.
And that is the story of Boo Kartus.
What became of hiim?
“No one knows. He wasn’t important enough so we didn’t ask for a name and just called him after that hooty owl…
Who? Who Who as the owl flew away Cares Cares Cares.
““This is about the closest I’ll probably ever have in my life to an ‘I am Spartacus’ moment,”
~+~
It’s never “This is about the closest I’ll probably ever have in my life to an ‘I am Fred Williams the Accountant’ moment.”
“And so are they all , all honorable men —“
The script for the movie Spartacus was written by blacklisted Communist Dalton Trumbo (using a pseudonym), starring ultra-liberal Kirk Douglas. However, Spartacus probably died in battle. There was never an “I am Spartacus” moment and Cory Booker is an idiot.
The Democrats have demanded more paperwork than from the last 5 nominations combined. This is not to really examine the policies of Kavanaugh, but looking for a gotcha moment and to slow down the process, hopefully to push it past Oct 1.
Paul
The Democrats are merely looking for the Senate to extend the same courtesies to Kavanaugh that Mitch McConnell extended to Merrick Garland.
The socialists, to correct your statement, were looking to monkey with the system and now we found they accidentally did the right thing by doing the wrong thing?
Still it remains the only two requirements are nomination by President and confirmation by Senate. There are no zero zilch, goose egg nada other requirements much less operating a circus or providing one.
All that is required is a straight up and own yes or no vote. Garland did not get a hearing because his President decided to play politics hoping for a far different outcome. He and others bet the farm on double zero and lost in more spins than one.
That’s right. The Senate is not obliged to hold a discussion with any nominee and the simiple act of ignoring the nomination is exactly the same as a pocket veto.All it required was Obama to provide another nominee.
I recall him saying ‘that’s as far to the right as I am willing to go.Obama failed to realize or didn’t care it was his job to provide nominees and it was his job to not confuse conservative liberal or left and right with Constitutional and non Constitutional but …… being of the latter persuasion he spun the wheel and lost yet another game.
He forgot that his definition of center is far far far different than the one inferred to or called for by our Constitution and he thinks ‘conservative’ is a perfectly good substitute.
For someone who supposedlhy taught Conlaw he had a remarkably poor graspere of the subject except when he needed to circumvent. And the dummy still doesn’t know why he lost the election just as much as Clinton did.
Simply put the Constitutionalist vote outnumbered the non constitutionalist vote but they were and are still to blind to see past. No problem let them not count in their silly ass polls the largest voting block as they did in 2016. There is plenty of room in the woods for psuedo Waldens.
Regarding Garland, the Republicants failed to do their duty as the Constitution clearly specifies.
But then they are all honorable men …
David Benson owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after fifteen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – The Republicans did not consent. It is part of the process. No consent, no justice.
As soon as the Republican Senate confirms Kavanaugh, most of them are going to turn on Trump for being so mean and nasty to poor Jeff Sessions. Just you wait and see.
Only in your addled head does the Constitution require the U.S. Senate to pay the President any mind when he nominates to a public office. In contradistinction to impeding a nominee for a cabinet post or federal bureau chief, a blocked nomination to a multi-member appellate panel causes little disruption. It merely requires the extant judges work marginally longer hours or issue more concise opinions. In re the Supreme Court, it means they grant cert to 3.6% of plaintiffs filing rather than 4%.
I think most are missing the real problem with the nomination process. It shouldn’t be political in the first place and citizens should be picketing Congress to do their job. Instead many want to permit Congress to defer its responsibilities to the Supreme Court. That tells us the system is broken.
Allan – I agree. SCOTUS should not be politicized.
Left, Center, and Right should all be able to work together and just read the law, not legislate from the bench.
I liked the stories about how Ginsberg and Scalia were friends.
Yes, but some feel that when they can’t get the legislators to legislate in their favor they should rely on the Supreme Court. In the long run that attitude is very destructive and in the short-long run it is anti democratic.
I thought Scalia was as close to a perfect SC justice as possible and he was funny. Why shouldn’t Ginsberg and Scalia be friends? Some think that is terrible but you and I find that refreshing.
TSTD:
I had a question during the Garland fiasco. Could Congress refuse to entertain any nominees or hold any hearings on the matter for 4 years? Is there anything that would require them to approve or veto? When I watched it unfold, as a lay person, I thought there must be some flaw in the process.
Advise and consent. By not allowing any hearings the Senate gave their advice. You don’t have to like it, you live with it or change the Constitution.
you are no Mark Antony and certainly no Brando either
How did they fail? They opted not to interview or even vote on the nominee clearly indicating he was unsuitable. I know the left is the Stupid Party but THAT stupid. There is no constitutional requirement to not confirm only TOO CONFIRM; try reading it some time.
Article Two of the United States Constitution “Requires the President of the United States to nominate Supreme Court Justices etc.”
Nowhere does it stipulate refuse a nomination or any manner of selection they choose to use or not use.
Garland’s problem was not Garland, nor the Senate but trying to pull an overloaded cart with no wheels an Obamanomobile.
But then the left is …… all illiterate men and women… when it suits them.
part II
and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme Court…
That is the sum total of the Senates requirement it does not say advice and refusal to consent. It does not say interview, it does not say recognize and it does not forbid ‘ignoring.’
In this case the Senate majority used the left as way to have them show how valueless hey are. Once again they took the bait.
Paul remember even if you did get a half assed attempt at cites etc.It would make no sense and have no relation to anything.
What it did do and would do is prove once again why the Stupid Party exists. I would say ad machina except there is a possibility of a human presence therefore
Habeto eas solus, hoc in aure
Which is a phrase you can use to good effect while waiting for
nihil necesse
Michael:
“Garland did not get a hearing because his President decided to play politics hoping for a far different outcome.” Would you explain further? I thought Garland was not confirmed because the Republican senate would not conduct the hearing during the last year in office. I thought they were wrong to do so. Republican or Democrat, as long as there is sufficient time to conduct a hearing, then any candidate put forth by the President should be considered.
Was there more to this story? Obama was supposed to put forth another nominee after sufficient time passed without a hearing?
The Democrats are merely looking for the Senate to extend the same courtesies to Kavanaugh that Mitch McConnell extended to Merrick Garland.
What was the name of the Supreme Obama the Islamic nut had wacked for your side for Garland.
What are you suggesting?
Garland wasn’t treated discourteously. His nomination was simply ignored, something the Senate has the discretion to do.
A quick correction, Paul. “Spartacus” was the first film in a decade written by Dalton Trumbo for which he did NOT use a pseudonym, but in fact his real name. It’s significant because in so doing he effectively broke the blacklisting that had gripped Hollywood and stymied his own career. Kirk Douglas, as producer of the film, championed (so to speak) his cause, standing up to McCarthyism, the studios and public opinion.
UndergroundRailroad – couple of things. 1) He and nine others refused to answer a particular question from the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities. Joe McCarthy was Senator and held hearings on the State Department and Army. 2) He was also writing the script for Exodus. Both were announced at the same time with Trumbo as scriptwriter. 3) Between going to jail for ten months for contempt of Congress and Spartacus coming out, Trumbo had won 2 Academy Awards for best screen play. He was constantly working while he was blacklisted. 4) When he won for The Brave Heart and no one could figure out who the listed scriptwriter really was, the suspicion was that it was Trumbo. So naming Trumbo outright was not that big a deal.
5) You are right. It is the first or one of the first he wrote under his own name. Trumbo did not get an Oscar nomination for either film.
today mccarthyism is on its ear as a bunch of post-communist lefitsts throughout US government see a right wing Russian behind every bush (or bot)… to the equal glee of the war mongers of today
Did you catch the dumpster dive the AP and the Sulzberger Birdcage Liner took through Ashley Kavanaugh’s office e-mails? In 1982, there were three nationally-distributed newspapers and three domestic wire services. As we speak, three of these agencies are a residue of their former selves and two are now Democratic oppo research contractors.
DSS – I already had two strokes so I am trying to stay detached. I missed the dumpster dive. Catch me up.
Ashley Kavanaugh is the manager for one of Montgomery County, Maryland’s ‘mini munis’, specifically the one styled ‘Village of Chevy Chase, Section 5’. (pop 500). IOW, she supervises the chaps who run the garbage truck, street sweeper, roto rooter &c. Both the AP and the Sulzbergers sent a request under some open records provision of the Maryland Statutes for her office e-mails. They had a looong list of search terms they wanted checked (eg. ‘gay’ and ‘abortion’).
DSS – did they get a lot of emails?
Paul – Oh my gosh, are you OK?
Karen S – I have manageable limitations. Thanks for asking. Had my first stroke while visiting Disneyland, which makes for a great story. 😉 Sadly, I can no longer hand write or sign my name.
our “free press:” some animals are more equal than others
PC Schulte,…
Pat Buchanan wrote an article a few years ago about Trumbo….I think it was at about the same time his life story was “Hollywoodized” in the movie with Bryan Cranston.
The title of Buchanan’s article is ” Dalton Trumbo had it coming”.
I’m more familiar with the history of Peter Seeger, aka ” Stalin’s Songbird”.
Trumbo seemed to harbor some of the same sympathies for the “right kind” of brutal dictatorships and the mass murderers who led them.
Paul – hasn’t he already released something like 400,000 pages, a record breaker? I do not know anything about the merits of the White House not releasing another 100,000 from his time as a White House lawyer. It was my understanding that there were privilege concerns – was that attorney-client privilege?
It is a bunch of Democratic hogwash. He was approved before and has over 300 decisions readily available for one to review to see what type of judge he is. He worked for the WH and his job was to make sure the words of the WH (not his) were correct. Let the vocal Democrats shriek and holler. That is what they do best.