Support NeoGAF

[Aaron Strife]

....I have no words.

You'd think she'd be allahbout military intervention.

 

[Mario]

....I have no words.

I caught a snippet of her speech at the rally she was speaking at yesterday while channel surfing last night. She is still going on about death panels.

 

[jamesinclair]

If you want to completely lose your faith in the american electorate, read no further than an article on global warming.

"The dumbocrats are scamming MILLIONS from the tax payer on their pretend global warming. They ALTER THE WEATHER to prove that its changing so they can get more and more grants"

 

[eBay Huckster]

Finally setting foot on US soil again for the first time in almost 6 weeks tomorrow evening

(did anything actually happen other than scandals)

 

[el retorno]

Finally setting foot on US soil again for the first time in almost 6 weeks tomorrow evening

(did anything actually happen other than scandals)

obama got impeached, prez biden now

 

[The Librarian]

Finally setting foot on US soil again for the first time in almost 6 weeks tomorrow evening

(did anything actually happen other than scandals)

I was appointed Queen of PoliGAF, but was given such checks on my power as not being able to buy my own birth control pills, and that I can't think about healthcare costs.

 

[Oblivion]

obama got impeached, prez romney now

Fixed.

 

[B-Dubs]

I was appointed Queen of PoliGAF, but was given such checks on my power as not being able to buy my own birth control pills, and that I can't think about healthcare costs.

You also have to support us while we just sit on our asses playing games.

 

[Rhomega Beta]

You'd think she'd be all ahbout military intervention.

Nah, I think she learned from Bush's mistakes.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

What kind of effect do you think this NSA debacle will have on the midterms and the 2016 election? Honestly I think this will cause the far right base to come out in force.

I'm starting to think it will have not much of an effect. Most people I know don't care about this stuff.

 

[Gotchaye]

I found this via Crooked Timber:

Greg Mankiw, respected conservative economist and all-around big-shot, has done some sketchy things before. He lent his name to some of the Romney campaign's propaganda, for example. But I think even Paul Krugman has said that his academic work is valuable.

Now he's done this: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/defending-one-percent.html

This is ostensibly written for an academic audience, although it isn't peer-reviewed (thank God, as this would call the entire field into question). And it's just awful. Also it's either gross neglect or plagiarism, as he shamelessly rips off Nozick's famous Wilt Chamberlain story; one would think that reading "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" would be the very first thing someone of Mankiw's politics should do before attempting political philosophy. Plus he misses the point of his own ripped-off thought experiment.

It's just unbelievably embarrassing. There are libertarian posts on GAF that make better arguments. It seems to have not even occurred to him to walk over to wherever Harvard keeps its philosophers to ask them what they think of what he's saying, and he's making no attempt to engage with (or be aware of) the literature.

Neat tidbits:

Poor people are genetically inferior.

Children of rich parents have no more opportunities than the children of middle-class parents. Mankiw knows this because his own parents were middle-class and he doesn't think his children have any more opportunity than he did.

Taxes are like ripping out people's internal organs against their will.

I count just one philosophical reference in the whole thing, to Rawls. That's a good choice, if you have to go with just one, but Rawls is invoked only to bring up "the veil of ignorance", which Mankiw then beats up on. This is high school debate shit.

 

[el retorno]

By contrast, the educational and career opportunities available to children of the top 1 percent are, I believe, not very different from those available to the middle class. My view here is shaped by personal experience. I was raised in a middle-class family; neither of my parents were college graduates. My own children are being raised by parents with both more money and more education. Yet I do not see my children as having significantly better opportunities than I had at their age.

This passes at harvard? For real? I wrote better papers than this in college.

Lets just make a statement, not back it up and say its true. this is what conservatism has become.

I've come to the realization, conservatism today has no intellectual foundation, all of their thinkers are just spouting out bullshit at this point.

Its old rich white guys thinking up their perfect imaginary worlds to justify why they shouldn't pay taxes.

 

[Hitokage]

This passes at harvard? For real? I wrote better papers than this in college.

It passes if you're well to do, apparently.

 

[The Technomancer]

This passes at harvard? For real? I wrote better papers than this in college.

Lets just make a statement, not back it up and say its true. this is what conservatism has become.

I've come to the realization, conservatism today has no intellectual foundation, all of their thinkers are just spouting out bullshit at this point.

Its old rich white guys thinking up their perfect imaginary worlds to justify why they shouldn't pay taxes.

Yeah, this is about where I arrived at a few years ago. Its depressing to watch it in action.

 

[el retorno]

It passes if you're well to do, apparently.

Now I'm even more pissed I didn't get in

well I didn't apply but still

Yeah, this is about where I arrived at a few years ago. Its depressing to watch it in action.

I tune out articles and arguments when they set up in the preface that certain real world things don't matter (race, class standing, place of birth, quality of schools, who you randomly meet on the street, etc.)

 

[Hitokage]

I've come to the realization, conservatism today has no intellectual foundation, all of their thinkers are just spouting out bullshit at this point.

In the past they had Buckley, but it has since turned stridently anti-intellectual. Kind of hard to have an intellectual foundation in such a case.

 

[el retorno]

In the past they had Buckley, but it has since turned stridently anti-intellectual. Kind of hard to have an intellectual foundation in such a case.

I liked a lot of buckley but even he turned towards stupidity for political expediency (civil rights).

The free-market capitalism these guys want to defend is rooted in pure selfishness. They just want more and don't think they are obligated to give any thing to anyone. If they were to say this then we might be able to have a discussion, but these guys aren't intentionally evil and they know that by forcefully arguing what they want to (they have no obligation to the poor and less well off) they sound likes evil dicks.

So they come up with these convoluted theories that aren't based in reality to make themselves sound like the true altruists. And the people who really want to "free the poor" from the evils of welfare and generosity. I think a lot of it is them trying to sort through their cognitive dissonance, as i think they don't hate the poor they just don't want to have to be the people who help them.

At least rand was honest, she just didn't give a fuck about anybody but her self.

 

[Hitokage]

I liked a lot of buckley but even he turned towards stupidity for political expediency (civil rights).

Oh, I don't mean to claim that he was wholly admirable, but it's pretty clear that the Republican party was in a much better place with him rather than the fringe groups Buckley worked to marginalize.

 

[empty vessel]

He hasn't really struck me as a horrible republican (he voted to end DADT for instance), whereas I can believe that Nevada republican says racist shit at home which leads to his son repeating it. Not saying Flake is a republican I like, just that he's not one that I dislike.

Woops, i was getting himconfused with somebody else.

Greg Mankiw, respected conservative economist and all-around big-shot, has done some sketchy things before. He lent his name to some of the Romney campaign's propaganda, for example. But I think even Paul Krugman has said that his academic work is valuable.

If he did he'd be wrong. Mankiw is a fraud.

 

[el retorno]

He hasn't really struck me as a horrible republican (he voted to end DADT for instance), whereas I can believe that Nevada republican says racist shit at home which leads to his son repeating it. Not saying Flake is a republican I like, just that he's not one that I dislike.

Jeff flake seems like an awesome dad

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/senator-survives-on-a-desert-island-with-his-kids-for-vacati

 

[East Lake]

Readin through the Mankiw thing. He seems confused when he singles out high frequency traders as people who aren't socially productive, like that's the end goal he wants.

 

[Oblivion]

Children of rich parents have no more opportunities than the children of middle-class parents. Mankiw knows this because his own parents were middle-class and he doesn't think his children have any more opportunity than he did.

Who the fuck uses anecdotal evidence in a goddamned ivy league level scientific essay?! /rhetorical

Mankiwi used to be kind of okay. He argued for the Bush tax cuts but later on admitted that they didn't work and that they should be revoked.

Soon after I figure he just realized that it's a pretty sweet gig being a right wing "intellectual" arguing for the same shit and decided to go with the flow.

 

[Frank the Great]

SCOTUSblog ‏@SCOTUSblog 8m

3d ruling (Alleyene): major criminal ruling - facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences must be proved to the jury, not a judge.

SCOTUSblog ‏@SCOTUSblog 7m

Jury trial ruling is 5-4. Justice Thomas joins the Court's left.

well that's something

 

[Lucky Forward]

Rick Perry Attempts To Hit Obama On Benghazi, Instead Talks About An 'Embassy In Lebanon'

“I fear where we’ve come to in America, where our administration won’t make one phone call to save our men and women in a embassy in Lebanon,” Perry said during a speech at the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference.

Earlier in the same speech, Perry referenced his past blunders on the main stage, making a biblical reference and saying that they had proven to be a learning experience.

“I’ve learned a little bit about humility, particularly on national television,” Perry said, according to ABC News. “But the fact is, God hadn’t called the perfect to go into the arena of public service. He’s called people just like you and just like me.”

Perry then proceeded to invoke a quote by former President Ronald Reagan to jab the left, claiming that "liberals know so much that isn’t so.”

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

well that's something

Has this ever happened before?

 

[Half and half]

Rick Perry Attempts To Hit Obama On Benghazi, Instead Talks About An 'Embassy In Lebanon'

haha, people clapped for him too. "woo hoo!"

 

[el retorno]

well that's something

was about to post this. I've never actually read thomas' opinions.

I like this one. Absurd that judges can decide additional things on top of what the jury says.

link:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-9335_i4dk.pdf


I'm really wanting to know why fisher hasn't come out yet. That was argued like 9 months ago

 

[Chichikov]

Who the fuck uses anecdotal evidence in a goddamned ivy league level scientific essay?! /rhetorical

Scientific?
The guy an economist.
That shit is a humanity, regardless of how many graphs they use.

 

[kingkitty]

Fox News has a blaring ALERT saying the NSA could release a list of thwarted terror plots today. But they love to abuse the BREAKING NEWS flashes so it's probably old news by now. Any who, might be interesting to see what the NSA will dig up.

 

[delirium]

@ggreenwald If you don't submit to the most brutal, sprawling prison state on earth you are a coward.

Yep - seems to be theory RT @ChadAustinSD If you don't submit to the most brutal, sprawling prison state on earth you are a coward.

This is the reason why people have a hard time believing in Greenwald. Really, America is the must brutal sprawling prison state on Earth?

 

[The Librarian]

This is the reason why people have a hard time believing in Greenwald. Really, America is the must brutal sprawling prison state on Earth?

Greenwald Against the World.

 

[Chichikov]

I wouldn't use that wording because it just help the people who wants to make that story about Greenwald, but the US does have the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Not sure about brutal (though it's pretty fucking brutal) but sprawling? Yeah, pretty much.

His bigger point about calling him a coward I agree with.

 

[Half and half]

This is the reason why people have a hard time believing in Greenwald. Really, America is the must brutal sprawling prison state on Earth?

Metadata!

 

[GaimeGuy]

Who the fuck uses anecdotal evidence in a goddamned ivy league level scientific essay?! /rhetorical

Mankiwi used to be kind of okay. He argued for the Bush tax cuts but later on admitted that they didn't work and that they should be revoked.

Soon after I figure he just realized that it's a pretty sweet gig being a right wing "intellectual" arguing for the same shit and decided to go with the flow.

Economics is not a science, though it tries to be.

As Benjamin Graham wrote:

"The concept of future prospects . . . invites the application of formulas out of higher mathematics to establish the present value of the favored issues. But the combination of precise formulas with highly imprecise assumptions can be used to establish, or rather to justify, practically any value one wishes . . . Mathematics is ordinarily considered as producing precise and dependable results: but in the stock market [sic: or in the options market, or in the subprime mortgage-backed securities market] the more elaborate and abstruse the mathematics, the more uncertain and speculative are the conclusions."

 

[Clevinger]

This is the reason why people have a hard time believing in Greenwald. Really, America is the must brutal sprawling prison state on Earth?

Not the most brutal, but we do have the most sprawling.

 

[The Librarian]

Aw yeah - Schweitzer gearing up for a Senate run.

http://m.missoulian.com/news/local/...11e2-aab5-001a4bcf887a.html?mobile_touch=true

 

[el retorno]

Second, let's be clear: I did not reveal any US operations against legitimate military targets. I pointed out where the NSA has hacked civilian infrastructure such as universities, hospitals, and private businesses because it is dangerous. These nakedly, aggressively criminal acts are wrong no matter the target. Not only that, when NSA makes a technical mistake during an exploitation operation, critical systems crash. Congress hasn't declared war on the countries - the majority of them are our allies - but without asking for public permission, NSA is running network operations against them that affect millions of innocent people. And for what? So we can have secret access to a computer in a country we're not even fighting? So we can potentially reveal a potential terrorist with the potential to kill fewer Americans than our own Police? No, the public needs to know the kinds of things a government does in its name, or the "consent of the governed" is meaningless.

We can't spy on countries we aren't at war with?

I understand his concern about the harm to things like hospitals but his reasons are laughable. We're not at war so its "wrong"

And the police are the real terrorists crap?

And the last line reveals the real problem snowden has. He wants radical openness. He doesn't like secrets. Which are essential to intelligence gathers. We are a representative democracy, the open are not entitled to know "everything." (I'm specifically referring to spying on other nations.)

1) More detail on how direct NSA's accesses are is coming, but in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on - it's all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time. Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications. For at least GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed.

I think he's admiting that the NSA doesn't really do the things he and greenwald are claiming they do, just that they have the ability. How does he propose the NSA solve this problem. Prevent them the ability from ever looking at this data? What about when they have a warrant?

Yes, I stand by it. US Persons do enjoy limited policy protections (and again, it's important to understand that policy protection is no protection - policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens) and one very weak technical protection - a near-the-front-end filter at our ingestion points. The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the "widest allowable aperture," and can be stripped out at any time. Even with the filter, US comms get ingested, and even more so as soon as they leave the border. Your protected communications shouldn't stop being protected communications just because of the IP they're tagged with.

More fundamentally, the "US Persons" protection in general is a distraction from the power and danger of this system. Suspicionless surveillance does not become okay simply because it's only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%. Our founders did not write that "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all US Persons are created equal."

Why the fuck was this guy working on US intelligence? The constitution protects those under US jurisdiction only. Not the entire world. The founders spied.

 

[Matugi]

Any of you guys hear about Moral Mondays in North Carolina? I think it's kinda cool that it's getting national attention; over 400 people have been arrested but sometimes that's what it takes. Our legislature is seriously fucked in the head: they've appropriated money to the absolute worst places, are trying to take public funding away from public schools and put it into voucher programs, and are doing some seriously idiotic things. One of my cousins has nearly been arrested twice at the protests.

 

[el retorno]

Cosmopolitan
✔
@guardian Can't help but wonder abt the interpersonal repercussions of your decision. What msg would you send your girlfriend? #AskSnowden

that hard hitting journalism Cosmo is know for

 

[RustyNails]

Obumber is doomed

 

[campfireweekend]

Woops, i was getting himconfused with somebody else.



If he did he'd be wrong. Mankiw is a fraud.

Wait. Should I be worried? I'm an econ major and my macroecon class used his book. That work of his is academically valid right?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Obumber is doomed

Just saw the headline on him having 54% disapproval and his numbers on trust plunging. He's officially a lame duck president now.

All that talk of avoiding controversies and getting things done in the second term? Nope. And when immigration dies in the House I bet republicans will blame the "culture of scandal" around the White House for dooming it ha.

 

[Link]

haha, people clapped for him too. "woo hoo!"

It reminds me of that scene in How I Met Your Mother where Lily tells Marshall how her kindergarten class will cheer for anything if you say it with the right tone.

 

[The Librarian]

Just saw the headline on him having 54% disapproval and his numbers on trust plunging. He's officially a lame duck president now.

All that talk of avoiding controversies and getting things done in the second term? Nope. And when immigration dies in the House I bet republicans will blame the "culture of scandal" around the White House for dooming it ha.

Another astute analysis!

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Scientific?
The guy an economist.
That shit is a humanity, regardless of how many graphs they use.

Lots of science papers are bullshit too but that doesn't stop bad science reporting.

 

[el retorno]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/snowden-lies-gang-8-compelled-me-act_735415.html

Edward Snowden says "lies" from the Gang of 8 are part of the reason he felt "compelled ... to act." He made the statement in response to a question about his motivations in releasing classified information on the Guardian's website.

"I imagine everyone's experience is different, but for me, there was no single moment. It was seeing a continuing litany of lies from senior officials to Congress - and therefore the American people - and the realization that that Congress, specifically the Gang of Eight, wholly supported the lies that compelled me to act. Seeing someone in the position of James Clapper - the Director of National Intelligence - baldly lying to the public without repercussion is the evidence of a subverted democracy. The consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed," Snowden writes.

It is not clear if Snowden is referring here to the Gang of 8 tackling immigration reform, or some other Gang of 8.

Here's the question Snowden is answering, "My question: given the enormity of what you are facing now in terms of repercussions, can you describe the exact moment when you knew you absolutely were going to do this, no matter the fallout, and what it now feels like to be living in a post-revelation world? Or was it a series of moments that culminated in action? I think it might help other people contemplating becoming whistleblowers if they knew what the ah-ha moment was like. Again, thanks for your courage and heroism."

That question is presented by someone with the name, AhBrightWings.

@SenJohnMcCain 11m
Say what? "Snowden: 'Lies' from Gang of 8 'Compelled Me to Act'" http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/snowden-lies-gang-8-compelled-me-act_735415.html …

Weekly standard or John McCain can't google.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Eight_(intelligence)

 

[Wilsongt]

One step foward, and then backwards off a cliff.

The Supreme Court Decided Your Silence Can Be Used Against You

A nation continues to wait for final word on the Supreme Court's Big Four cases this term — voting rights, affirmative action, DOMA, and Proposition 8 — but the justices' closest decision arrived first on Monday, in a 5-4 ruling on Salinas v. Texas in which the conservative members of the Court and Anthony Kennedy determined that if you remain silent before police read your Miranda rights, that silence can and will be held against you. Here's what that means.

RELATED: Who Cares That Kagan Is a Woman?

Basically, if you're ever in any trouble with police (no, we don't condone breaking laws) and want to keep your mouth shut, you will need to announce that you're invoking your Fifth Amendment right instead of, you know, just keeping your mouth shut. "Petitioner's Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer's question," reads the opinion from Justice Samuel Alito, which Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts backed. Justices Thomas and Scalia had a concurring opinion while the remaining four Supremes dissented.

RELATED: Why Is Scott Brown Voting No on Kagan?

The Salinas case revolves around Genovevo Salinas, a man who was convicted of a 1992 murder of two brothers. Salinas was brought in for police questioning in January 1993. According to the dissenting opinion of Justice Breyer, he was called in to "to take photographs and to clear him as [a]suspect" and Salinas was questioned without being read his Miranda rights:

Because he was "free to leave at that time," [App.14], they did not give him Miranda warnings. The police then asked Salinas questions. The police then asked Salinas questions. And Salinas answered until the police asked him whether the shotgun from his home "would match the shells recovered at the scene of the murder [Id., at 17.] At that point Salinas fell silent.

That silence was then used against Salinas in court, and he was eventually convicted. But the bigger question in revisiting this 20-year-old murder case was whether or not prosecutors were allowed to point to that silence, and win a case using Salinas' own silence against him.

RELATED: Conservatives Build Case Against Kagan on Military Recruitment Ban

You know what's a much more recent wrinkle to the potential precedent effect of today's ruling? A case like that of the younger Boston Marathon suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who reportedly sat through 16 hours of questioning before he was read his Miranda rights. Had Tsarnaev, who was recovering from serious injuries at the time, remained silent during questioning without explicitly invoking his Fifth Amendment, prosecutors could, under the Salinas ruling, now use that silence to their advantage.

RELATED: Those Lame Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

It all seems sort of almost ridiculously terrifying, this new idea that in order to claim your Fifth Amendment, you need to know how to call the on-the-fly legal equivalent of "safesies." Your right to remain silent just got more complicated, and it will require potential criminals to be more informed about their protections and the linguistic details on how to invoke them. "But does it really mean that the suspect must use the exact words 'Fifth Amendment'? How can an individual who is not a lawyer know that these particular words are legally magic?" Breyer wrote.

 

[B-Dubs]

One step foward, and then backwards off a cliff.

The Supreme Court Decided Your Silence Can Be Used Against You

Fuck me, what is wrong with people. Time to make a "FIF" business card, just in case.

 

[pigeon]

So today the Supreme Court found 7-2 that Arizona's Proposition 200 -- requiring voters to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote and to present identification when they do vote -- is preempted by the National Voting Rights Act and thus illegal. Some interesting quotes:

Finally, Arizona appeals to the presumption against pre-emption sometimes invoked in our Supremacy Clause cases. See, e.g., Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 460–461 (1991). Where it applies, “we start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947). That rule of construction rests on an assumption about congressional intent: that “Congress does not exercise lightly” the “extraordinary power” to “legislate in areas traditionally regulated by the States.” Gregory, supra, at 460. We have never mentioned such a principle in our Elections Clause cases.5 Siebold, for example, simply said that Elections Clause legislation, “so far as it extends and conflicts with the regulations of the State, necessarily supersedes them.” 100 U. S., at 384. There is good reason for treating Elections Clause legislation differently: The assumption that Congress is reluctant to pre-empt does not hold when Congress acts under that constitutional provision, which empowers Congress to “make or alter” state election regulations. Art. I, §4, cl. 1. When Congress legislates with respect to the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding congressional elections, it necessarily displaces some element of a pre-existing legal regime erected by the States.6

Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them. The Constitution prescribes a straightforward rule for the composition of the federal electorate. Article I, §2, cl. 1, provides that electors in each State for the House of Representatives “shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature,” and the Seventeenth Amendment adopts the same criterion for senatorial elections. Cf. also Art. II, §1, cl. 2 (“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” presidential electors). One cannot read the Elections Clause as treating implicitly what these other constitutional provisions regulate explicitly. “It is difficult to see how words could be clearer in stating what Congress can control and what it cannot control. Surely nothing in these provisions lends itself to the view that voting qualifications in federal elections are to be set by Congress.”

Anthony Scalia held the pen.

 

[Oblivion]

Scientific?
The guy an economist.
That shit is a humanity, regardless of how many graphs they use.

Economics is not a science, though it tries to be.

As Benjamin Graham wrote:

"The concept of future prospects . . . invites the application of formulas out of higher mathematics to establish the present value of the favored issues. But the combination of precise formulas with highly imprecise assumptions can be used to establish, or rather to justify, practically any value one wishes . . . Mathematics is ordinarily considered as producing precise and dependable results: but in the stock market [sic: or in the options market, or in the subprime mortgage-backed securities market] the more elaborate and abstruse the mathematics, the more uncertain and speculative are the conclusions."

i know that. But that doesn't mean one should still rely on friggin anecdotal evidence!