241 karma · joined April 13, 2012
It does not personally benefit the Clintons (other than the prestige). I've donated to Michael J. Fox's foundation. Does that make me his benefactor?
So, let me summarize your argument: You think that we should re-engineer the language to get rid of the distinction between discretionary and non-discretionary spending, in order to achieve a policy goal you find favorable. The situation is simple -- people like medicare and social security much better than the rest of government. In order to undermine support for popular social programs, you wish to change the language. I get that you believe there isn't really a distinction because of the way the government has borrowed from the SS trust fund. I don't entirely disagree with that. But you're still arguing for dumbing down the language to alter how people feel about government programs.
That sounds pretty Orwellian to me. It's a classic case of accusing one's opponent of the very thing you are doing.
So. Please refrain from these ludicrous, childish accusations about radical leftists and whatnot when you don't have proof and are in fact yourself engaging in Orwellian language games. Take 5 seconds to appreciate what an asshole that makes you look like, OK?
That simply isn't true. Things that are funded by an appropriations bill are considered discretionary because the level of funding they receive is up to the discretion of Congress. Things that are funded by a mandate are not considered discretionary because their funding is not up to the discretion of congress from year to year. The opinions of liberals or conservatives do not factor into which is considered which. There is a precise legal meaning here. It is not simply "a term the left made up".
In addition to there being a legal distinction, there is also an accounting distinction. Medicare and social security, the two biggest non-discretionary expenditures by the federal government, come out of entirely different piles of money than discretionary expenditures do. Were you not aware of that?
Your income taxes are not funding social security. Your social security taxes are not funding things that come out of the general budget. Cutting social security benefits would not free up more money to fund the things you think government should be doing.
So, although I get that you do not like the nomenclature, I don't get how it makes some particular thought unthinkable. They are two different things. They should have two different names. It seems far more Orwellian to pretend like there isn't a legal difference between the two, simply because it would make achieving political goals you happen to find favorable easier.
You seem to be under the impression we could take the money from social security or medicare and spend it on stuff you like better. Legally, that isn't true. So yes, in the sense that it would be totally freaking illegal, it is "unthinkable" to cut social security in order to lower income taxes.
You might as well refer to calling animals "lions" and "tigers" as newspeak, because they make the thought that they are actually the same species of animal unthinkable. Well, they aren't the same species of animal. So it ain't newspeak, it's just nomenclature that you don't like.
It is perfectly accurate to describe spending appropriated from the general fund as discretionary and social security as non-discretionary whether or not you like the terminology. They're two different things, one of which is up to the discretion of congress, one of which is not.
Come up with a new term if you'd like. But you've strongly implied you think the two types of spending aren't different. That's not Orwellian -- that's you simply not understanding freshman high school civics. You also claimed that "discretionary spending" is a term the left made up. Are you going to post a citation for that, or admit you were wrong?
Where did you get the idea it was simply "political newspeak"? Perhaps you should reassess the value of your contributions to these types of discussions in light of your demonstrated ignorance here.
I'm curious whether you recognize this as your opinion, which is valuable to you because it flatters your own political beliefs, rather than an objective analysis. You've provided no evidence; you're just arguing with a straw man here. Maybe it's time for a new hobby, bro.
"everyone feels that they are being victimized constantly" is a pretty bold claim. You offer no concrete evidence to support this. Instead you link to Jerry Seinfeld also claiming, without providing evidence, that colleges are too politically correct.
Is there too much sensitivity? I'm not saying there isn't. But you've offered nothing to support that claim other than a lazy "you know those PC college kids, amirite?" Well, no, I don't. I've heard some things I think are pretty silly, but how prevalent are they actually? Frankly, if this thread is anything to go on, anti-PC people spend plenty of time whining about how they're constantly victimized by political correctness, and I wonder how much of it is just projection.
You've taken this one incident (which, in the context of the "No Black Girls" parties and other details Fridersdorf deliberately left out, isn't even convincing on its own) and blown it out into "everyone feels that they are being victimized constantly." It's lazy and does nobody any good. Try going a week without using the words "always" or "never" unless you're referring to an actual tautology.
If so, it might be useful for you to think about why you gain pleasure/satisfaction from constructing an idiotic parody of others' beliefs that you can bat about your own head. What purpose does it serve for you?
The tweet you quote is saying something about privilege - how is it "classist, racist and sexist at the same time"? What do you believe is inaccurate about the assertion relative to privilege? Do you believe that white men don't (in aggregate) have more privilege than other groups of people? Or do you believe that privilege doesn't color the way people see the world?
What evidence do you have that "extreme leftists" (actual people, not ludicrous self-invented caricatures) believe that "white males chose to be born that way" and thus "it is impossible to racist or sexist towards them"? I'm not an "extreme leftist" but one of the most common things I hear from leftists is that "patriarchy hurts men too."
Every damn time, Hacker News. Every damn time.
I don't know what you mean by "potential restriction". We've had restrictions on commercial speech since the early days of our country.
Commercial speech is protected under the 1st Amendment. It can be restricted if it passes the Central Hudson test:
1. The speech regulated is fraudulent, misleading, or proposes an illegal transaction; or All of the following elements are present: a. The government's interest in regulating the speech is substantial; b. The restriction directly advances the government interest; and c. The restriction is no more extensive than necessary to advance the government interest.
Since the early days of our country, there has been a distinction between expressive organizations (like the New York Times -- a company that primarily engages in activities protected by the 1st Amendment -- publishing an article on how Bob's Chicken will make you sick) and commercial speech (Bill's Chicken, a competitor, publishing an article on how Bob's Chicken will make you sick.)
Both Bill's Chicken and the New York Times have freedom of speech. But commercial speech can be restricted if it's fraudulent or misleading, whereas expressive organizations are given far more leeway. That seems fairly common sense to me.
Do you honestly believe Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh (among many others) would vote for any bill Obama wanted? That's not factually true, so I'm wondering why you believe it.
Taxation doesn't control who you can marry. Taxation doesn't confiscate your children. Taxation doesn't prevent you from practicing your religion. Taxation doesn't require you to take the name of the person who owns you. Taxation doesn't deliberately keep you ignorant and uneducated. Taxation doesn't beat you to death if you try to escape (it is trivially easy to renounce your US citizenship). Taxation doesn't tell you are less than a human because of your national origin. Taxation doesn't make you owned by one person, a thing that can be sold to another person.
Get some freaking perspective.
I find that playing high quality mp3's through an upsampling DSP filter and a 24/192 DAC seems to produce a better listening experience. (As the article points out, this could be due to confirmation bias, or the filter making the music a tiny bit louder.) Intuitively it makes sense to me that the DAC sending signals twice as frequently to the headphones would produce a smoother analog signal, but is that actually true?
You can take an SDXC card and format it as FAT32 and it'll work -- of course you'll still face the limitations of FAT32 as far as file size, etc.
"A person who is good at software development is not reading hundreds of books about software development" doesn't strike me as true. People who are really good at something often spend far more effort to continue to improve than someone who is mediocre.
Do you believe that neuroplasticity remains constant throughout a person's lifetime? Unless you believe that, your statement is incoherent.
Lesions and scars are acute changes in the brain that happen after birth. That's different from starting out missing massive chunk of your brain.
OP: "Look at that person who was born with no arms due to a birth defect. They're able to live a fairly normal, happy life. Maybe arms aren't essential to human happiness."
You: "So you're saying if you got your hand mutilated in a garbage disposal, that wouldn't make you unhappy? A hand is much less than a whole arm."
(I'll leave what this makes you a demonstration of as an exercise for the reader.)
Debt: The First 5000 Years [1] is an excellent book I'd recommend if you're interested in the history. It's very well researched and a fascinating read (even if you don't agree with the author's politics.)
"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it."