Karl Denninger's Personal Blog - Comments

Karl: Obama or McCain?

nospam@example.com (Karl) — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:02:42 -0500

I believe that The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to keep and bear any infantry armament, since its purpose is to prevent tyranny by the government (this is clear if you read The Federalist); self-defense and hunting purposes are "beneficial side effects."

Sanjay Bansal: Obama or McCain?

nospam@example.com (Sanjay Bansal) — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:03:44 -0500

A friend referred me to your site, and since yesterday I have enjoyed sifting through your various "musings." Thank you for taking the time and effort to provide your insights. I am on the same page with you economically. Americans will essentially be relegated to a life of servitude in the form of serfdom if we continue down this economic path. It angers me to no end that I live my life prudently, save, and now watch by capital depreciate due to horrible economic policies and a government that disincentiveses saving.
In terms of political choice, I have to go with Obama. His ability to beef-up our intangible assets such as "good-will" is immeasurable, along with a cost effective-workable foreign policy. See, Democrats are known as "tax and spend liberals." Republicans have just become "tax-deferring, spending and killing liberals."
What do you believe the limit, if any, should be in terms of an individual's right to bear arms? By this I mean should any type of weaponry be allowed or some outlawed?

Kyle: Labor Day Political Musings....

nospam@example.com (Kyle) — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:10:42 -0500

If congress is setting standards and appropriating money, "which they are", then what they are doing is unconstitutional. They are either respecting an establishment or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. We have strayed so far away from the constitution we may as well use it to start our next fire.

Karl: Labor Day Political Musings....

nospam@example.com (Karl) — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 07:30:57 -0500

An obvious non-sequitor.

I have no issue with the teaching of the biology of reproduction; that is an expected and normal part of, in fact, biology class.

We live in a nation where it is explicitly unconstitutional to promote an "establishment" of religion - irrespective of which one that might be, or irrespective of which one you might NOT be.

There is no reason to teach a "moral code" as pertains to sexuality. It is an impermissible intrusion into the right of the people to form, hold and transmit their own moral (and religious) norms, which are not, under our system of government, vested in government.

If the state and local governments wish to put together curricula that meet local and state community standards, under their state Constitutions, that's perfectly fine. But The Federal Government has no authority or right to intrude here - on either side.

Requiem: Labor Day Political Musings....

nospam@example.com (Requiem) — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 02:48:31 -0500

What do morals have to do with sexual education?

Does this mean that nutrition courses should also be verboten when they run afoul of various religions' dietary laws? Just because a religion lays claim to the morality of a given behavior (be it eating, sexual activities, or textile production) should not mean that discussion of that behavior becomes forbidden. (A policy which could be interpreted as ceding a religion power over curriculum.)

Karl: Labor Day Political Musings....

nospam@example.com (Karl) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:05:55 -0500

It is my position that The Federal Government has no business of any sort under The Constitution to institute curriculum requirements of any kind.

Such power is reserved to The States, which (most of them anyway) have a Constitutional requirement to provide a free public education.

The Federal Government has no business funding or mandating anything in relationship thereto. Period.

Therefore, what Sarah Palin supported and promulgated as governor has nothing to do with the Federal Government as she is and was within the proper exercise of power as *a Governor*, but that power does not extend to The Federal Government and thus her opinions thereupon are immaterial to her qualifications as the second executive at The Federal level.

Karl: Labor Day Political Musings....

nospam@example.com (Karl) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:03:05 -0500

Happy to.

Where do morals come from?

Ding!

Karl: Labor Day Political Musings....

nospam@example.com (Karl) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:02:36 -0500

Obviously someone has never read The Constitution, which reserves all rights not explicitly granted to the Federal Government to the states, or to the people.

But heh, what's a little document between friends.

Martin: Labor Day Political Musings....

nospam@example.com (Martin) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:41:34 -0500

Hi Karl,

While I agree that the children of the candidates are not in and of themselves directly relevant to the campaign, I think you are missing something when you say "and let me remind the "liberal left" that Obama was born when his mother was 18 - and there is question as to whether she was married at the time of conception!"

What is the point of reminding the liberal left of that? They have no problem with unwed pregnancies. When they point out that a Republican has an unwed pregnancy or that a child of a Republican has an unwed pregnancy, or that the child of a Republican is gay (Cheney), they aren't concerned about the unwed pregnancy or the child being gay. The liberals who dwell on these things are saying that the Republicans involved are hypocrits, as in "Republicans are anti-gay, but Cheney has a gay daughter, so Cheney is a hypocrite", or "Republicans are anti unwed pregnancies, but Palin has a daughter who is pregnant, so Palin is a hypocrite."

Of course, never mind that Cheyney or Palin have no control over what their children are doing and that the accusations are non sequitors. I believe that such stuff is rather silly, but I think you are missing the point the liberals are making, given your statement.

Also, you bring up a Constitutional argument. Where in the First Amendment does it say a parent can indoctrinate a child in any fashion desired? It says you as an individual can have your own religious beliefs, but where does it say you can then impose your personal beliefs onto a child? (Another good one is where does it say you have a right to have or raise a child?).

Does the first amendment granting the power of a parent to impose religion on a child also extend to the power to impose free speech onto a child? As in, say as an example a parent likes the teachings of Hitler, does that parent have the right to force the child (at least until age 18) to write papers ( perhaps to submit as homework, or as letters to an editor or as a statement of belief for a college admissions, ect) espousing the pro Hitler beliefs that the parent holds? Even if such papers would possibly ruin various career and social choices of the child?

What about religious beliefs that prohibit getting a vacination? What if your child were to get measles because another child got it as the result of his parent deciding he was against vacinations for religious purposes? Does the possibility of your child getting sick make it your business under the first amendment what the other parent does with his child?

What about a parent having religious beliefs against evolution, or for a universe where the earth is the center of all, or where the earth is flat? Can the parent force the school system to teach these beliefs to the child - even if it means the child will be intellectually handicapped later for having such beliefs? What if the parent has religious beliefs against Calculus or arithmetic? To what degree is a child allowed to be ignorant until age 18 in a world where you have to know quite a lot to get along as an adult just because the parent wishes it so? Is there such a thing as mental abuse with respect to education?

Of course there are the other issues of a parent believing "spare the rod, spoil the child" means use a rod a lot for beatings, and whether that is protected under first amendment and whether it is anyone's business.

I once had a discussion with a lawyer about social services just coming into people's homes and taking children without proving anything wrong, without habeus corpus, without due process, without a trial. I was against taking the children. The lawyer saw nothing wrong with it. He said the government had an obligation to protect the rights of the child and that the parent had no inherent right to raise the child. With no inherent right being violated, there was no need for a trial according to him.

RJ: Labor Day Political Musings....

nospam@example.com (RJ) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:31:47 -0500

And I was outraged by the Rovian Swiftboating and by the (knowingly false) insinuation that Obama was a Muslim, etc., etc., etc. Outrage at candidate rumor accomplishes absolutely nothing, in our postmodern, post-Rovian/Carville, media frenzy politics. What Swift-Boating has demonstrated, if we didn't already know, is that negative campaigning works, unless the campaign responds quickly, decisively and convincing. Don't rely on the American voter to search out the facts; instead, know that advertising sells.

I feel sorry for all candidates' children and Palin is the issue, not her child or her Down's child. In fact, given my family history, I find the latter quite sympathetic. I know virtually nothing about Palin. If reports are true--I will find it extremely difficult to support a candidate that supports Intelligent Design as biological instruction. As should you if your outrage on religious instruction is genuine rather than feigned. Perhaps this is another inaccurate "attack" line--I'll wait to see when more reliable information is out on her. But she is so unknown that I'm only going on initial reports.
McCain apparently is striking for the evangelicals by selecting her, or that seems one of the few plausible interpretations. Not impressive, in my book, but to each his (or her) own. And I suspect the Obama campaign was taken aback by the choice, which smacks a bit of a Dan Quayle-esque (unknown, small state, won't block the sun from the candidate) selection criteria, though I trust Palin is more competant than Quayle.

I hope. Or maybe this was Rove anticipating the sympathy backlash?--no, the last 8 years have made me too cynical.

Bill: Labor Day Political Musings....

nospam@example.com (Bill) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 19:56:21 -0500

Alright, I'll take the bait:

I do not understand how religious education equates to sexual education. Please expand upon your reasoning.

Karl: Labor Day Political Musings....

nospam@example.com (Karl) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 18:33:02 -0500

But Congress is the one setting the standards and appropriating the money.

If a state wants to have whatever standards for these programs it deems fit, that's within its constitutional rights (most states have a constitutional mandate for free public education)

But for the federal government to set these sorts of standards - either way - is flatly unconstitutional as it is a clear and clean violation of The Establishment Clause, just as it would be if the curriculum requirement was for a *Bible Class*.

You can't prohibit one without prohibiting the other.

Kyle: Labor Day Political Musings....

nospam@example.com (Kyle) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:44:03 -0500

I personally think there should be NO government schools, but since there are government schools I will point out that they are not run by Congress nor the federal government... yet.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Matt Busigin: Robert Reich, Politikal Hackster Extraordinaire

nospam@example.com (Matt Busigin) — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:37:47 -0500

In regards to nationalised health care, I've come to understand that the real problem is not a resource allocation issue insomuch as a fundamental supply and demand problem.

With the current structure, it just doesn't matter if the money was sitting there: it would just serve to rearrange the current shortages.

No amount of money will change that, but because only 1/100th of people understand this, the political response while a nationalised health system is in place is to increase funding to cover the inevitable care shortages. Since the resources to better the system aren't even there, everything just becomes more expensive and wasteful.

With a nationalised system, there is no turning back. Conversely, a private or two tiered system (which is effectively what the USA has) can be dynamically organised by the participating agents to find the optimal balance between efficiency and care.

Karl: USSC Gitmo Ruling - A DISASTER

nospam@example.com (Karl) — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:39:27 -0500

There is nothing like the blind trying to tell someone what an Elephant looks like.

The folks who are incarcerated in GITMO are not girl (or boy) scouts. Further, they are not US Citizens and were not captured here inside the United States - the Constitution simply does not apply to them, as they are not elegible for its protections, and neither do the Geneva Conventions, since they were not armed enemy combatants wearing a uniform.

It would be nice if you became educated before pontificating on that which you wish to speak. And no, listening to George Soros and Michael Moore does not count.