Here's Gov. Palin during the debate with Sen. Biden:
"Now you [Biden] said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not patriotic. Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution. In fact, too often you're the problem so, government, lessen the tax burden and on our families and get out of the way and let the private sector and our families grow and thrive and prosper."Well, you heard it here first, folks: I have uncovered incontrovertible evidence that Sarah Palin has received hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax revenue and converted them to her own personal use!! Where the hell else does she think her salary comes from?
It may be foolish, or unwise, or even unreasonable to suggest that people pay higher taxes; sometimes it surely is all of those. But it is really irresponsible, outrageous, and insulting to say that it's unpatriotic. I dislike paying my taxes as much as anyone, and I dislike the general propensity of the Democrats to spend more and to tax more. But paying taxes (along with voting) is one of the most patriotic things I do. I don't pay my taxes because I'd go to jail if I didn't; I pay my taxes because that is the price we pay to live in the society in which we live, and it's insulting to suggest that somehow I'm being snookered into acting unpatriotically. If the government has things on which it has to spend money, it is sheer Knucklehead Conservatism to say "we need to spend the money — for a war against our enemies, for example, or to pay the medical costs of our retirees — but we won't ask people to pay any taxes to fund it." And it's thoroughly irresponsible of a candidate for high office to suggest that paying taxes is unpatriotic. If McCain and Palin are elected — increasingly unlikely, but just suppose — let's just stop paying our taxes, OK? It would be the patriotic thing to do.
Whoa, folks ... this firestorm of comments is a little more than I bargained for. A couple of responses to the many, many points raised in the comments:
1. If you think I'm such a fool, YOU CAN STOP READING MY POSTS. That's the good thing about the VC - there's lots of other stuff for you to read and argue about.
2. The most interesting comments were those (from the more reasonable ones) suggesting that I mistook "unpatriotic" for "not patriotic." That's a pretty interesting point. To begin with, I would've thought they were, in fact, synonyms. Undressed is the same as not dressed. Unbearable is the same as not bearable. Unkind is the same as not kind. Unintelligent. Unfair. Unreasonable. At least, in most contexts, and most usages.
3. Having said that, I can see the counter-argument that many of you are making here; Palin's not saying "Biden is being unpatriotic", she's saying "Biden is wrong to suggest that paying taxes is patriotic." It's what we lawyers call a "fine" distinction - not irrelevant, I grant you, but, in my opinion, not central to what she was trying to communicate. Look at what she said:
"Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution. In fact, too often you're the problem so, government, lessen the tax burden and on our families and get out of the way and let the private sector and our families grow and thrive and prosper."
So let me get this straight. It's patriotic to say "lessen the tax burden," but it's not patriotic (oops!! I almost said "unpatriotic") to say "raise taxes to pay for the things you're buying." That's what she's saying, folks. Her words, not mine. Now, many of you seem to think that makes perfect sense, and shows that Gov. Palin understands many things that have eluded morons like me. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion. But I still don't get it. It still looks outrageous, over-simplified, and irresponsible, to me. And if that makes you want to call me names, see Point Number 1, above.
4. I know that Gov. Palin knows that her salary is funded by taxes. That was meant as irony. If you didn't catch that, I should've made it clearer.
Update 2. A few of you have tried the interesting strategy of actually reading what I wrote and thinking about it. Here's courtwatcher:
I'm convinced David P is correct here. Palin said:
"In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not patriotic. Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution."
Try replacing "patriotic" with any of the words David suggests. In these cases, the context and usage make clear that in those cases, "unX" = "not X":
In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not reasonable. Reasonable is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution. In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not intelligent. Intelligent is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution. etc.
In all these cases, it's clear from the context and usage that "not X" means the same as the compound word "unX" would mean. (Go ahead and explain why this is wrong - all 300+ of you. :-) )
I can see situations in which "unX" would not mean "not X," and commenters have correctly identified some of them. But this isn't one of them, and certainly it isn't obviously one of them. This part of David's post is completely reasonable even if some here disagree with it. To say it's obviously "wrong" or a failure of logic is just incorrect. It's stunning to see how unwilling people are to even imagine that someone might have a different view.
I couldn't (and, I guess, I didn't) say it better myself.
Now, once again — you might disagree with my assessment that Palin's statement was outrageous, or that it is irresponsible for a candidate for public office to make it. That's entirely fair game, and I'm even (though many of you will not believe it) open to persuasion on that. But to all of you who called me some pretty nasty names for making such a foolish logical mistake, maybe you're the ones who need to take a deep breath and look at the text on the page and think about it. Apologies can be sent to me at David.Post@temple.edu :)
Such patent nonsense is not confined to the right (although bizarre theories about the 16th amendment not being ratified, the meaning of the word "income" and so forth do seem to be more common among the Ron Paul crowd than the Ralph Nader crowd).
"I've brushed my teeth every day, isn't that good?"
"Well, Eric, brushing your teeth doesn't really count as good or bad...it more counts as 'brushing your teeth.'"
Palin wasn't saying that paying taxes is unpatriotic, but that there's nothing particularly patriotic about paying taxes. And she's right. Especially when the lion's share of federal taxes goes to entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare.
You may think that "paying taxes is one of the most patriotic things [you] do." Joe Biden might agree with you. Very, very few other Americans would.
You're the first person to come down with Palin Derangement Syndrome. Relax, man, it's only rock n' roll.
And if not paying taxes is unpatriotic, then I guess Wesley Snipes should have been charged with treason as well.
You're the first person to come down with Palin Derangement Syndrome. Relax, man, it's only rock n' roll.
And if not paying taxes is unpatriotic, then I guess Wesley Snipes should have been charged with treason as well.
You pay your taxes so you don't end up in court with the burden of proof on you, the accused.
You pay your taxes so your property isn't seized, ultimately; although if you are paid as a wage earner, the government already does that two or four times a month.
You want patriotic? Send a salami to someone's boy in the army.
Palin says "Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution."
I'm not really sure from what you've inferred that Palin believes paying taxes itself is unpatriotic. Perhaps you could explain why you believe this is her stand?
Palin's statement that acknowledging the government can be a problem and furthermore that we should always be willing to stand up against the government seems right in the line with mainstream American political ideology. I would go so far as to say that these principles played a large role from the founding on.
I also wonder how many of your co-conspirators would disagree with the statements that the "government...[isn't] always solution." or that "lessen[ing] the tax burden...and get[ting] out of the way and let[ting] the private sector" thrive and prosper is a bad thing? Do you?
But that's not consistent with the rest of her response, which is indeed dumb as bricks.
I guess gov't should've "gotten out of the way" after 9/11 and let the free market deal with al-Qaeda.
KATZ'S
That's my criteria for patriotism.
Wiretapping without a court order? Now that's patriotic !
Daid Post 1, Straman 0
Congrats, David, you won!
preview is my friend; itchy fingers, not.
I can't wait for DP's thoughts on last night's debate. Is it next week yet?
It was Biden's claim that the "rich" should want to pay more in taxes because paying more in taxes was patriotic.
By the way, if Biden, or Obama, or any wealthy Democrat that believes that tax rates on the "rich" are too low has ever, even once, engaged in an act of "patriotism" by voluntarily writing checks to the US treasury, I would be interested in finding that out.
If they think that's how you can demonstrate patriotism, how come not a single one of them has ever engaged in the patriotic act? Is it only patriotic if they force everyone else to do it too?
Theft of my money is only patriotic to those who build their politics on theft. That includes you, it seems.
Everyone agrees that surrendering your child to the government (i.e., the military draft) is patriotic.
Yet some go nuts at the suggestion that surrendering your money to the government (i.e., federal income tax) is patriotic.
(This, incidentally, dispenses with the very first comment from "observer," to the effect that "[d]oing something that you are required to do by law (like paying taxes) is not patriotic." Baloney. People are required by law to comply with draft orders. When they do so, they're acting patriotically. Or would you deny the patriotism of conscripted soldiers?)
"nonpatriotic" ≠ "unpatriotic"
Similar themes appeared regularly in Soviet/Nazi and US propoganda about sacrifice for the state, how noble it was. The US war bond campaigns, for example. But buying a bond still was optional.
Sagar beat me to it, but the argument you demolished is not the one she made. And, while like Anderson I saw two points being made, contra Anderson, I didn’t see them as inconsistent or dumb.
First, she rejects the formulation that equates patriotism with calling for higher taxes (not paying one’s taxes, but “please, sir, may I pay another”).
Second, she argues that it would be better to label as patriotic actions leading to lower taxes – eschewing the knee-jerk request for government intervention in just this special project, or, better yet, identifying area of government involvement where that involvement could be reduced or eliminated. At worst, you can use the South Park formulation and call it asking for less oppressive government, without over-reaching by actually calling it patriotic.
I agree with Gov Palin that citizens should spend more time asking what my country need not do for me, and I strongly agree that labeling a request for higher taxes as a form of patriotism is ludicrous.
Phil
Bunk. The government makes a mandate, so the choice of being patriotic is no longer an option. The only visible choices are compliance with law and noncompliance with law. Either could be morally defensible as better for the country.
In other words: government's restriction of individuals' choices cause patriotism to no longer be the deciding factor (and, I would argue, is indefensible itself).
Except when you live in Alaska where the state motto might as well be "Subsidies R Us", given that the state gets about $14,000 per citizen from the mean ol' fedrul gubmint.
Wow! Welfare! Oh, wait, that's because the federal government owns most of the land in the state.
That comparison is flawed... parents do not surrender their children to the draft, because minor children are not eligible for military service.
I would certainly argue that signing up for the draft is not patriotic at all. It's required. Patriotic acts involve a free will choice. A draftee can act with heroism and patriotism once he's in the armed forces, but registering for Selective Service isn't patriotic.
Anyways, you obviously read Friedman today, but have the same lack of logic. Your argument is a mischaracterization of what she is saying to set up a straw man.
DAVID "NO BRAIN" POST SHOULD STOP POSTING UNTIL HE TAKES LOGIC 101!!!!
What I've noticed about conservative arguments over the years is that when government mandates something that they agree with, it's a manifestation of the will of the people being expressed through their elected representatives. (And how dare unelected judges elevate their personal preferences over a democratically enacted law, etc.)
But when government mandates something that they don't agree with, it's this faceless entity called the State raping everyone.
If paying your taxes as required by law is the most patriotic thing that you do is it ok for me to question your patriotism?
(I actually surveyed those, to the detriment of my regard for my fellow man; the kicker had to be the argument that, if Obama weren't secretly Muslim, he'd go by "Barry" not "Barack.")
Palin Derangement Syndrome is apparently evidenced by wildly *positive* reactions to Palin.
Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution. In fact, too often you're the problem so, government, lessen the tax burden and on our families and get out of the way and let the private sector and our families grow and thrive and prosper.
What does that have to do with paying for the Iraq war and our national debt?
Can you imagine Palin trying out the just-quoted gibberish on Wm. Pitt the Younger in the House of Commons, circa 1793? I would devote my life to building a time machine, just to enjoy that spectacle.
are you talking of 18+ year adults who can vote? just like the "children/teens killed by guns" even when the said children/teens are adult gangbangers!
RINOs are good at that. The GOP is growing more liberal and using those tactics more and more. Why do Democrats like to hate on "neocons"? The same reason Stalin called Fascists "far-right."
Anderson, I think that this is actually the Ron Paul position. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque
What order of patriotism to award the guys who enlisted, did ROTC, etc in order to serve in the military in some advantaged way, e.g. choice of branch or specialty or admission to OCS?
Then we can finally nationalize the health care industry and Hugo Chavez will like us!!!!!!1
"patriotic, adjective: devoted to the well-being or interests of one's country."
"patriot, noun: a person (claiming to be) ready to support or defend his country's freedoms and rights."
Paying duly levied taxes, or serving in the military when conscripted, are "patriotic."
But why listen to the elitist dictionary, instead of "most Americans"?
Of course, he gives about three tenths of one percent of his gross to charity, so he's a patriot:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/04/the-charity-gap/
Sorry.
Ol' Joe Hair-Plugs is a blowtoad and a charlatan.
Patriotism is mostly orthogonal to the decision to comply with a mandate. Keep up, please.
oh boy, i bet you and thomas frank are BFF. if not, you two should definitely get together. you could have quite a good time explaining to each other why you are so much smarter than republicans. for my own amusement, you should get together at a bar in West LA/Hollywood so that you can sit next to two aspiring actors who can't stop commenting on how good looking they are.
The fed's ain't subsidizing tundra up there.
You're implicitly saying that the actions of the government are for the well-being of the country. Why would you automatically make that assumption? This is why we elect people out of office.
Don't confuse comments on the act of filling out your card with comments on the service you performed.
Of course not. It generates income.
You must skip the Bernstein posts.
Whether dissent constitutes "opposition to the country" or merely "opposition to the government" generally depends on whose ox is being gored, I've found.
Eric, Muller
"Everyone agrees that surrendering your child to the government (i.e., the military draft) is patriotic. "
Parents do not surrender their children, the children surrender themselves, as adults, and being forced to join the military is not in and of itself a patriotic act, but it is unpatriotic to refuse to join. Joining by being forced into the draft does not BESTOW patriotism upon an individual, but it also does not remove any patriotism from the person. A forced soldier will either act in his new duties patriotically, or they will act unpatriotically in their duties. People who are drafted and sent overseas who do the diservice of commiting war crimes would be unpatriotic drafties, while people who are drafted and perform their duties without trying to undermine the war effort and those they are stationed below in the chain of command are patriotic. The fact that you joined does not in and of itself determine your patriotism, it is how you act.
Paying taxes is not patriotic, but refusing to pay taxes is unpatriotic. I would say a person who knows they could get a bigger refund by itemizing, but decides against itemizing with the intention of giving more to the government would make that person patriotic, while someone who chose to itemize and put things down as deductions that are fictitious would be considered unpatriotic, and the people in between these two extremes are just your normal people who get absolutely no patriotic badge of honor for simply fulfilling their forced duty to file their taxes.
When a child is killed in action, the parent is a "gold star parent." Gold star parents occupy a special place of honor in our society, as they should. We view them as having made a heroic, and patriotic, sacrifice.
Right?
So ... if we view their service to the nation, in surrendering and even losing their children to the national interest, why should we not also view someone's service to the nation, in surrendering and even losing their money in the national interest, as in some basic way patriotic?
That's disgusting.
What you're saying is that being against socialized medicine is being against the country, not against the government promoting it, because obviously the policy is good -- I just don't want to help people!
There's no draft on right now. There's a reason they're lauded.
That is indeed the guiding principle by which the government is supposed to act. The fact that it fails to do so, to whatever degree, is not surprising, but it doesn't affect the argument.
Palin after all is a vehement supporter of the government's actions in Iraq, for instance. She has not suggested that she is opposed to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Nor has she indicated an interest in repudiating the national debt.
If you've ever consulted the little pie chart that comes with your 1040 booklet, you know that the vast majority of federal expenditures fall under those 5 headings (taking "Iraq" for "defense").
Paying taxes to cover the expense of programs voted by our elected representatives is indeed patriotic. It fulfills a duty we owe our country.
I can see why this is hard for someone of Palin's intellect to grasp, but I don't see why so many of you are having trouble with the concept.
I think the entire 20th century was a lesson in proving that the oligarchy could do exactly that, if not just dump their bodies in Siberia.
Evidently not enough to keep the moose's nose out of the trough.
Pinning your argument on a rhetorical turn phrase is just silly. I'll by my father's child for as long as he lives, but he can't compel me to join the Army.... and the government certainly can't compel him to try and force me.
Paying a tax under threat of prosecution is altogether different.
So American troops drafted in WW2 weren't lauded or praiseworthy? The guys who took bullets on Omaha Beach were patriotic and laudable only if they were volunteers?
You're sounding a little despicable here, sorry to say. I hope you will clarify that you don't mean what your words imply.
This is a really, really stupid post.
So supporting a government driving the country into bankruptcy is patriotic regardless of whether that's good? Okay.
It's mandatory. Patriotism isn't the deciding factor, no matter how many times you make a useless crack at her intellect.
Stop acting like an idiot. Being lauded for voluntary service doesn't mean that performing for involuntary service is a bad thing.
Stop with these stupid fallacies.
"I can see why this is hard for someone of Palin's intellect to grasp, but I don't see why so many of you are having trouble with the concept."
Maybe that is because you do not understand the difference between doing something volentarily and doing something under durress of force by virtue of loss of freedom, property and even life in some cases.
When you volenteer to do something good for your country, you are a patriot. When you grudgingly acquiesce to the law of the land by virtue of not wanting to have your property, liberty or even your life taken from you by force, I do not see how that makes you a patriot in heart. It just simply makes you a nuetral party to what is going on around you.
Please head over to your local VFW Hall and tell the Vietnam vets gathered there that they didn't act patriotically when they served as draftees. Because they were just acting under legal compulsion.
If there's anything left after they're through with you, we can continue the conversation about whether "observer" was correct when he posited that a compelled act (like paying taxes) cannot be a patriotic one.
They founded it based on a revolt against taxation without representation. The modern right claims that we don't have to pay taxes to a duly elected government explicitly empowered by the 16A to set the level of taxation.
Big difference.
It's seriously uninformed to think that the military draft exists.
The main post goes way past overheated into just plain weird. Reread Palin's comments and calm down.
programs votedbuying votes from constituencies by our elected representatives is indeed patriotic.Fixed.
T,FTFY.
I for one, would pay my taxes even if they were voluntary. It seems wrong to drive on the roads, send my kids to school, utilize the services of the fire dept. police and military, benefit from federal stewardship of public lands, etc... without paying my fair share.
Supposing it were even possible, would you guys really be comfortable sharing the benefits of government without paying your share?
Nah, not at all. In fact, I can't remember the last time I heard anyone on the left arguing that it's unpatriotic to oppose Democratic health care proposals.
Maybe you and I can agree that opposing Bush's foreign policy is no more unpatriotic than opposing Obama's tax policy. But I don't think everyone will agree on that, which was my point.
If you oppose the war, are you unpatriotic, or do you simply believe that the government made policy decisions that are not in the nation's best interest? I take the latter view. Lots of folks take the former one.
They are patriots because they are patriots, if they actually are patriots, not because they were drafted. Being a patriot is what is in your heart. You might still be a Y if you are forced to do X, but being forced to do X doesn't make you Y. Learn logic. It will help you out in life.
That just makes the sentence even harder to understand. On what possible grounds could you possible assert that we shouldn't have to comply with the explicit terms of our Constitution?
I'm not a big fan of Palin, but she didn't suggest anarchy. It's fine to argue that we need more or less government, but she wasn't suggesting no government. Your 9/11 comment was absurd. Let's deal with the actual arguments, not your carciatures of her positions. That's something I'd expect from jukebox, not you.
David,
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I really long for the days when you posted about soccer. This is really one of the dumber posts I've ever seen on this site . . . .
Apparently are a number of problems with the Palins and their 2006 and 2007 tax returns. She better start worrying about her own tax problems before she comments on tax policy and the patriotism of others.
From A Brief Analysis of Governor Palin's Tax Returns for 2006 and 2007 by Bryan Camp, (Texas Tech University Law School):
Also, from TaxProfBlog:
You have managed to "distract" the conversation - no one is pointing to David Post's idiocy anymore! congrats:-)
Maybe the government shouldn't be doing those things.
Just because they can levy an income tax doesn't mean they should.
"Please head over to your local VFW Hall and tell the Vietnam vets gathered there that they didn't act patriotically when they served as draftees. Because they were just acting under legal compulsion."
It is their actions that make them PATRIOTIC, and if they acted patriotically while in forced service then they are patriots, but if they acted say like John Kerry did, with express intent of going to the war zone to give him credibility when he got back the USA in order to attack the war effort I would say they are unpatriotic.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your use of the word "should"? In most cases, it's a normative word used in references to our legitimate obligations. Perhaps you are using it in some other sense?
We don't need the government to provide any service whatsoever except the military. Schools, roads, fire, police, medical, retirement, etc. could all be provided through private enterprise without government intervention. Of course, that would mean that those who act irresponsibly (e.g., not saving properly for retirement) might get the shaft and not have Uncle Sam come in and bail them out whenever something goes wrong.
Modern conservatism now stands for borrow and spend (mostly on waging war).
Can it be endless argued? By lawyers, partisans and others?
Yes, if you wish to spend your time doing that.
Sophists and casuists are a dime a dozen. V. this thread.
It is the entitlement mentality written large that Biden seems to be propounding here. More and more people are entitled to the fruits of our labors. And he is suggesting that it is patriotic for those of us who are paying for his largess to pay for even more of it.
I think that Palin was right to call BS on that.
That's not to say that your views are wrong in any meaningful sense of the word, they just aren't the policies that a democratic government should put in place because they are at odds with the vast majority of the populace.
Even if what the people want is stupid or irrational, they have the right to get it. Libertarian paternalism is just as bad as liberal paternalism or conservative paternalism -- it implies the right of the speaker to tell people what they want over their objections.
"Modern conservatism now stands for borrow and spend (mostly on waging war)."
There you go confusing "republican" and "conservative" again....
In a democracy, The People are entitled (within the limits of the Constitution) to enact policies that are objectively (whatever that means in this context) Bad Ideas(TM).
"Yet people seem to get a glee out of controlling others at the point of a gun. Personally I do not."
You've tried it?
The document dump is here.
To be clear, the situation is this (stipulated for the sake of argument:
The majority of the people, consistent with their democratic prerogative, have set up a system of government built roads, police, prisons, fire departments, etc... You are unable to convince or force them to abandon these policies. You are also unable to avoid benefiting from them since you do, in fact, drive on the roads, enjoy safety from fire, etc..., even if you don't like it. You are also empowered not to pay taxes, despite your benefits from those taxes.
I think I get it. Sarah Palin is unpatriotic because, in her heart, she resents paying the money that supports our troops. I, on the other hand, am a patriot because I gladly pay that money.
What's the knucklehead index for paying for billions in pork every year, then saying it's patriotic to pay for even more waste? What's the knucklehead index for sending billions to Washington so some senator can then send it back home to his favorite project?
It's Republic, not a democracy. And judges long ago interpreted the Constitution in favor of the government.
This is why no flinches when Joe Biden syas the power to "regulate commerce among the states" gives him the power to regulate everything but abortion.
We never voted on that.
When this country was founded, how much of a role did the federal government have in providing any of those services? And I'd say that this country did just fine from then until the early 1900's (when federal income tax was put in place and Congress was given almost limitless power through the commerce clause to get its hooks into virtually any area of society it sees fit).
Oren: Yes, you're correct. And I think today's government madates are against the spirit of the Constitution (anything abridging life, liberty, and the pursuit), and some against the letter (including any and all gun bans -- "shall not be infringed" != "Congress shall [not]").
The text of the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to tax incomes, consistent with the desires of the electorate. That's all we need to know for the purposes of this argument.
I have no objection to attempting to elect anti-tax congresspeople, trying to repeal the 16A, or any other such political opposition. I object to notions that powers acquired under a democratically ratified constitution can be labeled illegitimate (as opposed to mere unwise).
As for "desires of the electorate," I tread a fine line between wondering whether voters are malicious or stupid; but the less of my fellow citizens' risk I have to absorb, the better.
With some of her language you could say the same about Palin.
"Shouldn't" because you don't like it or "shouldn't" based on some principle that I'm not understanding?
I don't feel represented by the bailout. I don't know who does.
I will vote accordingly.
There are certainly more moral and patriotic ways to fund government in a free society. Perhaps we should fund the government through hand-outs, freely given by the people instead of having the government confiscate everyone's wealth and then use the apportionment of it as a means of buying votes. Perhaps we could do it by raffles or lotteries or a million other ways that don't involve forcibly separating people from their possessions.
The modern day left is indistinguishable from any other bunch of Marxists in their ability to rationalise the greatest tyrannies in the name of controlling the thoughts, actions and resources of their fellow citizens. There is NOTHING patriotic about threatening your neighbors with imprisonment, or if they resist, death, so that you can take their money and pay off some investment banker's debt or to buy windmills or any of the other things that politicians and bureaucrats do in lieu of honest work.
This is why only the most contemptible and morally reprehensible of any society become part of the governing class of societies as far down the road to socialism as ours. The job requirements preclude having a conscience that is any more highly developed than that possessed by the average felon.
There's a difference between disagreeing with a rule/policy and calling it illegitimate. Both people on the right and left have made that mistake more and more recently.
Vinnie, your current taxes are put in place under a written Constitution with an express delegation of authority to a representative body. Taxation without representation it ain't.
It is to me.
Whatever the framer believed, they certainly believed that if 70% of the population want a policy, they ought to get it and even be able to change the constitution to enact it.
Her reference was to paying taxes generally. Besides, money is fungible; it makes no sense to say that she can limit her taxes only to certain purposes. It all comes out of the same pocket in the end.
Oren: I don't like it because of the principle that, because it brings in as much revenue as it does, government is able to fund programs without feeling the appropriate economic impacts (specifically, it has a bad case of moral hazard). With the addition of wealth redistribution, it also shrinks the economy in order to smooth risks out between welfare recipients and tax payers, which is economically bad and morally wrong. And then there's the use of taxes to modify behavior, which distorts economies in unforeseen ways, though which had been the purpose of even excise taxes when the country began. The government acting as an agent of economic risk management seems to make everything worse.
Does anybody agree with this? I'm sure most of us have been called to jury duty. And I'm sure most of us when called, have served. But I'm also sure that most of us who have served have observed others come up with the most bogus excuses to get out of jury duty. Bogus, when the real reason was that the service would have been inconvenient. Is that not unpatriotic?
Skipping jury duty for its inconvenience, while believing that juries are essential to the proper functioning of the judicial system, would indeed be not patriotic.
Taxes are important. Without taxes, Obama never would have been able to purchase that 3-million dollar planetarium projector that McCain said he purchased.
I’ve been to the planetarium. I’ve seen the Zeppelin and Floyd shows. If Obama’s projector is what I think it is, it blasts some incredible stuff onto the planetarium walls.
McCain lost the stoner vote.
And I disagree with that Holmes quote for the most part, but I agree that police power is effective.
Supposing it were even possible, would you guys really be comfortable sharing the benefits of government without paying your share?
Approximately 30% of federal tax filers pay no income taxes, and so do not pay any share yet receive the benefits from federal government. Presumably most of them manage to sleep at night.
Gee, I wonder what would happen if Joe Biden went around claiming that the poor are unpatriotic because they don't pay taxes, and that government should increase taxes on "working class" families so they can exult in their patriotism?
Can we trade Post for like Tamanaha or Dorf or someone?
Sure.
But we're not talking about surrendering and even losing money in the national interest. We're talking about surrendering and losing money so that despicable oxygen thieves like Biden can buy enough votes to remain in office indefinitely. We're talking about the 75% or so of the federal budget that you could improve the lives of average Americans immensely by zeroing out tomorrow.
There is nothing whatsoever that is patriotic about throwing good money after bad.
D Post: try some breathing exercises. Go for a walk. Take up yoga. But please stop posting this crap until you can govern your passions well enough to make sense.
Gov. Palin was saying that paying higher taxes -- NOT paying taxes, paying higher taxes -- was not patriotic. I agree. I don't think paying taxes is patriotic either, it's a requirement and a duty. It's no more patriotic than paying a fee to renew my passport is patriotic (or renewing a driver's license or whatever).
Also, as others have also noted, anyone can voluntarily make an extra gratuitous payment to the U.S., I once read there's a statute expressly permitting it. If paying higher taxes is so patriotic, why isn't David Post making voluntary payments? Why isn't Sen. Biden? Etc.
I do think that AVOIDING one's tax burden, leaving it to others to bear an undue portion of the burden, is generally(and arguably) unpatriotic, and I might extend that to cover some technically legal tax avoidance schemes. But even assuming arguendo that tax avoidance is unpatriotic does not ipso facto make paying higher taxes patriotic.
If paying higher taxes is patriotic, is imposing higher fines for speeding patriotic? Higher fines for breaking the law, criminally or not, generally? Higher fees for driver's licenses and hunting licenses and professional licenses and (etc.). There may be good reasons for raising those fees, but to claim that paying more money to the government is inherently patriotic is idiotic.
On tax evasion, there's a humorous quote from a "Nero Wolfe" story by Rex Stout (from about 50 years ago) which I happened to reread recently, in which the character notes to a client that given how late it is in the year, he's already in the 90% (!) tax bracket and it's hardly worth the trouble to work for him, he's offered payment in cash -- to which his reply is that he's not a paragon of virtue and might cheat a man or woman or child, but not 140 million of his fellow citizens.
Every time I hear someone say things like this, I wish I could find a time machine and put the speaker to the test.
Supply-siders argue that lowering tax rates increases incentives to work, which generate additional tax revenue and offset revenue losses from lower rates.
Oh, is that what agitating for government money is? I see. Inspiration comes from federal handouts. The banks know it!
Hey, I tied my shoes today, so I didn't trip and kill myself on the way to work, depriving the gummint of my daily $80 tax contribution. I took a shower, too, so my fellow citizens didn't gag over their morning coffee when I walked by. Where's my Medal of Honor?
this has got to be the worst definition of patriotism that i've ever heard. but, sadly, it seems to be what most conservatives think is patriotism.
Supply-siders argue that lowering tax rates increases incentives to work, which generate additional tax revenue and offset revenue losses from lower rates.
Why? Because it's voluntary support and not government-mandated funding?
Brooks also called Obama "a very mediocre Senator" while simultaneously calling him and McCain "the two best candidates we've had in a long time."
So a bit of a disconnect unless our political class, as a whole is much worse than I thought.
The basis for his complaint against Palin is that he considers her to be an anti-intellectual. Me? I haven't seen much evidence on it either way with she is anti-intellectual or not--other than her inability to name a newspaper she reads regularly (but hey, neither do I, though I look at a lot of sources online for information).
Since you're not self-employed, much if not all of your tax payments are withheld from your paychecks. You don't really have a choice in the matter.
When it doesn't involve making a moral choice, your action is neither patriotic nor unpatriotic.
Nick
Oh, would that it were true.
But this argument really was dumb, David.
It says we're more interested in delivering them from the yoke of corrupt Chicago politics than he is.
Good post. While Palin is railing against government, she has gotten a tax-free per diem subsidy to the tune of $43,000 for Todd and her family--definitely illegal. She should pay her taxes, then the rest of us can pay less.
So a bit of a disconnect unless our political class, as a whole is much worse than I thought.
Obama may be a better executive than a legislator, assuming the truth of Brooks's comment for the sake of argument.
Obeying the law is unpatriotic.
As many correctly commented before me, Governor Palin neither said nor suggested that paying taxes was unpatriotic, but rather alleging that it was patriotic was an absurd notion.
It is irresponsible, outrageous, and insulting for a law professor not to read someone's words carefully. Once again, sloppy analysis.
That way when Obama gets into office---instead of breaking his campaign pledges by raising my taxes---he can "raise patriotism."
An interesting way of looking at Brook's comments--except Obama's executive experience is close to non-existent and thus Brooks has no valid way to make that point.
The newly dead are some of the least patriotic Americans. True story.
If the gov't kept itself to roads, police, prisons and fire departments, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'd be happy to pony up my share.
Wool research, on the other hand...
1. It isn't the case that doing x is patriotic.
2. Doing x is unpatriotic.
1 doesn't entail 2.
True: It isn't the case that eating broccoli is patriotic.
False: Eating broccoli is unpatriotic.
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782
Make your checks or money order payable to "United States Treasury"
Please be patriotic and I hope I have not overwhelmed the office with the number of people who will now donate. I am sure David Post will get out his checkbook as soon as he reads this.
So a bit of a disconnect unless our political class, as a whole is much worse than I thought.
Obama may be a better executive than a legislator, assuming the truth of Brooks's comment for the sake of argument.
Anderson:
While I usually agree with you, I think Dave N. is correct that Brooks's two statements regarind Obama seem strangely contradictory.
My point, though, was about Palin and what a not-insignificant number of conservatives think of her. And yeah, Brooks is a conservative -- or at least if you exclude people with his politics, you have a definition of conservatism so purist that the conservative movement becomes pretty darn small.
Of course, people are free to disagree re Palin, but I don't ever recall such negative reactions to a VP candidate from folks on the same side of the partisan divide this near an election.
1. Those who think before they write.
2. Those who write before they think.
I have no idea what this means. Moving right along, since the Republicans have repeatedly claimed that funding the troops is patriotic, then it is obviously patriotic to pay the taxes which provide those funds.
Only if your grading curve is pretty steep. Anyone who would prefer to live in 1900 rather than today is pretty obviously ignorant of everyday life in 1900. And I don't just mean progress in science; I mean government sponsored and government provided services as well.
In addition, it's just silly to pretend that the federal government didn't play a role in American society in 1900 (a much larger role than it played in 1800). Just as much of our progress since 1900 is attributable to the federal government, so much of our progress between 1800 and 1900 was attributable to the federal government.
Oh, dang! I thought shopping was the most patriotic thing to do!
Unless you mean "progress toward socialism," you lost me here.
Yes, civil rights for blacks is definitely socialism. Acceptance of women into the workforce, also socialism. Civil rights for criminal defendants -- socialism.
What, pray tell, isn't socialism?
But we can't have that, because it's for the good of the children.
Hey, Glenn Bowen,
Don't forget the Marines!
However, you are not allowed to send any product containing pork to a Marine or Army or Navy etc. if they are stationed in a Muslim county such as Iraq or Afghanistan. Can't hurt their sensibilities, you know. So make sure the salami is beef. My son and his fellow Marines in Iraq enjoyed his care packages a lot. The 12 to 13 hour days, 28 days a month, not so much.
David,
I am glad, (I think), that you vote. However, the patriotism goes to the Marine and other Military Men and Women, past and present, who have kept us free so you can enjoy the right to vote, not to you for voting.
There was a recent survey of college students about activism. Now, I think of the Civil rights movement, Suffrage, etc. when I think of "activism". Turns out, these kids describe themselves as activists if they are vegan, or buy organic food or ride a bicycle.
Ditto, David, with your view that paying taxes and voting is patriotic.
Absurd.
Get to know some Military men and women. You will start to learn about not only what patriotism is, but sacrifice as well. Or do you consider that you sacrifice for your country because you go to the polls to vote instead of voting absentee?
Biden was referring to the marginal tax dollar, suggesting that that dollar would be more productive in Washington than in, say Wasilla. I'd say that would be a debate a libertarian blog would be comfortable in claiming to be (at least) open.
But Biden doesn't stop there. He asserts that sending that dollar to Washington is a patriotic duty. He is free to do so. What is strange is advocating that the state should enforce that duty. If it were patriotic duty, what need enforcement?
And Palin is somehow deranged in so questioning why?
Uh, I think it would only take 12 million of us to not pay our taxes for the gov. to be in trouble, at least, if you look at what we are told by this gov. about not being able to do anything about the 12 million illegal immigrants in this country.
Anderson, glad to know I am patriotic for paying for all those programs. But, does that include the waste and fraud in Medicare, for instance, and the pure pork in most spending bills not to mention the bills our "elected representatives" vote for, like the Farm Bill, because they will get big campaign contributions? I have just a wee bit of a hard time feeling patriotic about my tax dollars going for Corporate Welfare and to other assorted crooks elected or otherwise.
Oren,
Of the taxes you mentioned, most of them enumerated above are not paid by your federal taxes. You pay for the roads when you buy gasoline (some of which goes to the state and some to the Feds) and pay your state income taxes and for schools when you pay your property taxes and the fire, etc. when you pay your local sales taxes when you buy something. Actually, the Feds taking a lions share of our money would mean that we have much less left over to pay for the above items.
I am a home-town hee-roe!
deepthought,
A tax document a potential blockbuster? Sure to outsell the Bible any day now, no doubt.
By the way, per diem is not taxable. It is payment for expenses and is not income.
if people were being honest, they would recognize that sarah palin's comments about obama's community organizer past came AFTER obama felt the need to mock her for being "only a small town mayor." to which she replied that a mayor has a lot more responsibility than a community organizer. and she's right. oh, and she's a governor. but way to condescend, obama.
if the silver tongued senator can dish it, why can't he take it?
DB is right. It is incredibly UNpatriotic to lower taxes during a time of war, and generally during a time of increased spending. Like NOW. Let's all agree that not leaving the bill to our children is patriotic. Other words come to mind, too (moral, right, considerate, responsible).
it's not a definition of patriotism, it's an example of a patriotic act. and likely a great deal more patriotic than anything most liberals have done lately. (hey, broad stroke stereotyping is fun!)
Ah a fellow traveler down the Nero Wolfe road. A btright spot on this blog.
Brian K, why don't you try it sometime either the Military or sending care packages. Lots of civilians do, you know. It's a lot of work and the Gov, makes it as hard as possible with the Custom's Form etc. Let me know when you've put a few together and mailed them off, OK? Too much work? You can go to Soldier's Angels and volunteer to write letters to servicemen. Again, let me know.
Really, thales, or was he as most of the others in the crop of "helpers" just using them to get government money and power to move ahead? That's what he did and he didn't change anything at all.
Haven't you noticed that, so far, the "poor" always get used and shafted by community activists and politicians? Did anything change? No. But lots of money went to so-called activists. Give me a break. Next you will be telling me how noble Al Sharpton and Charlie, I govern the committee that makes tax laws but I am pleading ignorance about my tax return, Rangle? It was his wife's fault, remember? These people are called poverty pimps. They market in the problem and the last thing they want is a solution. They NEED the poor for a political base and need them to stay poor. Education has received ever increasing sums of money for years but has gotten worse and worse. The solution? More money. Yeah, right. If Obama were still there, I might agree with you. But, he did just what every other poverty pimp does, moves on to higher office.
would you mind paying for my patriotic shortfall? i going to be short this april.
A tax document a potential blockbuster? Sure to outsell the Bible any day now, no doubt.
By the way, per diem is not taxable. It is payment for expenses and is not income.
The analysis is not mine, but the linked sources. Does your analysis include Todd Palin's et. al. per diem, even though the family members are not state employees? Also, do you believe the State of Alaska did not violate its own rules? Please cite the appropriate Alaska tax code sections. Thanks.
Whether they are state employees is not the test. The test is whether they were engaged in governmental functions.
The First Lady (or in Todd Palin's case, the First Dude) will often engage in governmental functions simply by being married to the Governor (or President, for that matter). Cut a ribbon; give a speech; do SOMETHING that benefits the State and it counts.
Correction, the Federal tax code.
Ok, so I don't think is was quite this close to an election, but you forgot Eagleton, perhaps? His party dumped him. That's pretty negative.
See David N above. Also, you are proving why we need a national sales tax or a flat tax. We wouldn't have these problems.
I suggest you read A Brief Analysis of Governor Palin's Tax Returns for 2006 and 2007 by Bryan Camp, (Texas Tech University Law School). It's only 12 pages and a very easy read, esp. before you make bald assertions without the detailed facts.
What I used to be able to count on is that the original poster would be intelligent, cogent, logical, and often provocative.
Now I find a post whose author's reading comprehension is somewhere below what I'd expect to find at Free Republic or the Daily Kos.
Damn, Mr. Post, if you get paid more than minimum wage for your logical skills, you are guilty of serious price gouging. On the other hand, if you're selling snark per pound, you might be giving someone a bargain.
But this trash is not worthy of what I've come to expect from Eugene Volokh, Orrin Kerr, Dale Carpenter, or even you.
I'll check back after the election. Maybe sanity will have reasserted itself.
Somewhere between 40-50% of our citizens don't pay any Federal Income taxes. I think we are soon going to see why our Founding Fathers were worried about this scenario.
Obama, of course, will increase the subsidies to the rich (that's the purpose of Democrats), with a few scraps for the poor as window dressing.
Republican patriotism: Raising babies and killing taxes.
Democrat patriotism: Raising taxes and killing babies.
Brooks is the prototypical "young fogey", and is thus a conservative in temperament, if not much else. He's also inclined to worship authority, which the candidate of global technocracy exudes out of every pore.
The Niebuhr thing is a perfect illustration. Niebuhr was cutting-edge in the 30's and 40's, with something of a revival in the 60's. All the common interest in Niebuhr of Brooks and Obama shows is that Brooks is infatuated with the past and that Obama has a passing familiarity with center-left theology/social thought.
Niebuhr's also likely the first (and, often only) theologian anyone on the left* would come up with if asked to name one. Brooks wonder at Obama's familiarity with Niebuhr only reveals his own shallowness. Of course, Obama could likely also fill him in on James Cone if he were really interested in ideas**.
* - which raises questions about the intellectual barrenness of the theological left over the past 50 years
** - my guess (judging, like Brooks, by his current associates) is that Obama's association with the radical/illiberal left has pushed him in a more liberal direction. As has mine.
I respectfully disagree. I find personal qualities in both that certainly eclipse Gore, Kerry, or Edwards. Given the ineffectiveness in many respects of Bush/Cheney, that's not much of a bar to clear either.
I also disagree that libertarians or most religious conservatives are "right-of-center" in any way that makes historical sense. They certainly do not fit the fascistic bill this generation raised on continental leftism expects to find when they think of "right". Hence the difficulty "getting" Palin and the resulting cognitive dissonance plaguing those like our esteemed poster.
Agreed. When I find myself looking fondly at Hilary and Bill and wishing McCain was running against Hilary, you know this Democratic choice is pretty bad.
On the other side, I find myself wondering how in the hell did McCain win the primaries when there were so many other good candidates? His biggest problem now is the same one he has always had, he sees so many sides to every issue and wants to reach out so bad that he doesn't know where he stands.
If he were a real Republican, he would have a coherent and easily understood economic message. As he is somewhere in nowhere land, he is grasping. So is Obama, but the press lets all of his inconsistencies go and it doesn't matter because Obama "understands" the voter.
Agreed. When I find myself looking fondly at Hilary and Bill and wishing McCain was running against Hilary, you know this Democratic choice is pretty bad.
On the other side, I find myself wondering how in the hell did McCain win the primaries when there were so many other good candidates? His biggest problem now is the same one he has always had, he sees so many sides to every issue and wants to reach out so bad that he doesn't know where he stands.
If he were a real Republican, he would have a coherent and easily understood economic message. As he is somewhere in nowhere land, he is grasping. So is Obama, but the press lets all of his inconsistencies go and it doesn't matter because Obama "understands" the voter.
Given that her son was in the military and scheduled to go to Iraq, and as one who has "been there", I can assure you she was supporting and praying. And, she will be praying as she has never before in her life until her son returns.
"If he were a real Republican, he would have a coherent and easily understood economic message."
I'd think the test of a real Republican would be whether he was supporting his candidate about now. Which wouldn't leave you much authority to speak on the subject of McCain's reality. Bites, doesn't it?
"I find personal qualities in both that certainly eclipse Gore, Kerry, or Edwards."
Fair enough, I really was thinking primarily of the issues.
"I also disagree that libertarians or most religious conservatives are 'right-of-center' in any way that makes historical sense."
I am not sure what this means. Certainly, society has moved to the Left significantly over the past 50 (or 20, or even 10) years, so most people who are considered right-of-center today (and by this I would include libertarians and Christian-Coalition types) would not necessarily have been all that far from the center historically. For example, 20 years ago, anyone other than the very far Left would have vehemently opposed homosexual marriage, and hardly anyone would have taken seriously the idea of giving all sorts of constitutional rights to foreign detainees outside the U.S. But I don't think that's what you're getting at.
Mac:
"On the other side, I find myself wondering how in the hell did McCain win the primaries when there were so many other good candidates?"
I always thought that McCain won because conservatives were split between Romney and Huckabee, while the minority centrist Republicans all went for McCain (Huckabee wasn't fiscally conservative, but he did attract the votes of many social conservatives). The fact that McCain and Huckabee were united to screw over Romney also helped. Had it been a vote between Romney and McCain only, I am convinced Romney would have won (and we wouldn't have been in the horrible mess we are in today).
I am not a Kool-aid drinker. I am capable of believing that McCain/Palin will be much better for the country than Obama without thinking that McCain is perfect. I see his flaws and was never a huge fan and I live in Arizona and know his record rather well.
I was never a fan of Bill and Hilary, but she is looking darned good right now. At least she is a practical person of knowledge and was not likely to drive our country into the ground. And, I would pity the terrorists or their sponsoring country who dared to attack us while she was President. If I can be rational about the Clintons, I can certainly be rational about McCain.
Why don't you try it sometime? It saves one from defending indefensible positions and looking like a fool. They are humans, sir. Last I checked, no human was perfect. With politicians, it is always a question of who will do the least harm. JFK was the last politician I adored and, in retrospect, he nearly brought on a nuclear war due to his inexperience and he got us into Viet Nam. Lesson learned.
What about you?
I'm not convinced that the guy who looks like he's straight out of Wall Street central casting would be doing so hot just now. No fault of his, of course.
Jerry F.,
I think you are right.. However, I think Romney's Mormon religion was a factor. Not just among the Christian right, but with so called tolerant voters as well.
I can't believe the naiveté of Mr. Warner who seems to think one must be besotted with the candidate to be for them. How childish.
Boy, does this sound like projection. Must be relaxing not to have to think for yourself.
At least she is a practical person of knowledge and was not likely to drive our country into the ground. And, I would pity the terrorists or their sponsoring country who dared to attack us while she was President."
Hello? The country has already been run into the ground by your team. Re pitying the terrorists, when is it that Bush and McCain are going to reveal their secret plan for getting Bin Laden, who has gotten a free ride from your guys for seven years. I apologize for "looking backwards".
It's not really bizarre at all. What's bizarre is when people expect institutions like CATO, or the Volokh Conspiracy, to have a single viewpoint on every problem imaginable -- the party line. Sometimes, institutions like to have diverse viewpoints -- it spices things up, and makes you question your assumptions. DavidP
Uh, you boggle the mind. Your comments are apropos to what? You should apologize. It is accepted, if you don't do it again. This post is ridiculous enough without dragging Bin Laden into it.
As to running the country into the ground, I presume you think that Franks, Dodd and Schummer have nothing to do with our current problems?
All Democrats are good and all Republicans are evil? Something like that?
Fine, just please don't tell me that Obama is "The One". OK?
There is, in Hayek's words, "a universal tendency of collectivist policy to become nationalistic as due entirely to the necessity for securing unhesitating support."
Thus, patriotism - the last refuge of a scoundrel -- is now misused to support high taxes and the long road to serfdom.
I pay the taxes because that supports the infrastructure that makes my wage earning possible. However, I don't like how much is wasted.
I've been a supporter of flat tax since the 80's sometime. Set a dollar amount deduction and flat rate on the rest.
I don't understand the logic that states the 'rich' aren't paying their fair share when they pay higher tax rates as it is.
And really, isn't my burden on the Federal Government the same as anyone else? Why should I pay more for the 'services' I receive than others do?
I'm not big on questioning the reality of my fellow citizens without cause. I also follow Washington's advice to avoid faction, so I'm American, neither Democrat or Republican. My main concern is that the current level of support for our elected representatives and candidates (as opposed to support for the military on the one hand, and unelected power - the Ivy/Beltway axis - on the other) is a threat to the survival of the Republic, so I defend them, exactly because they're human, and that's what we're stuck with. History teaches that the alternatives are worse.
In the past, I've supported both Bill Clinton and Gingrich's congress. Tragic that both men were too small for the opportunity, though altogether they didn't do badly. I supported Bush, but the combination of 9/11 messianism and Cheney's insularity in war-time hamstrung his effectiveness in other areas, such as social security reform, where his gifts were sorely needed.
I voted last week for Obama. I think it's time to get beyond the Boomers' petty rivalries, and Obama is, if nothing else, post-Boomer. I think he's also likely to scale back our world policeman role, which our future generations, lacking representation, should not be taxed to fund. In much of the country today, the Dems are the conservative party, in that vast swaths of the establishment are Democrats, so Obama is likely to be the less disruptive choice. See Warren Buffet, for instance.
That said, I have great respect for McCain, and bright hope for Palin, who will be needed to clean up the messes Obama's friends will no doubt make, and to rally those dissatisfied with mere Europeanism.
"Getting" bin Laden? Now there's a top priority for the next Prez, getting a lone fella who, yup, ordered up one of the most horrific attacks in history more than seven years ago, when half the guys now serving in Iraq were in 8th grade, and who has ordered up a grand total of...well, zero follow-up attacks since then, and who may well be wormfood for the past five years, for all we know. Plus his global cultural influence is now on a par with that of Michael Jackson and Supertramp.
I'll bet you're pissed at FDR and Truman, too, because, although they defeated the Axis and freed Europe, they failed to get Adolph Hitler.
Given the above, though it was a bit hard for my poor brain to follow, then why do I need to not criticize McCain ever in order to vote for him? I think I said first, politicians are human. None are perfect.
I am now very confused, Mr. Warner.
I am very happy there has been a resurgence of Blue Dog Democrats. You are aware, perhaps, that the Far Left of your party is doing every thing in their power to defeat them? They would rather have a Republican in the seat than a Democrat that is off the Reservation. I am finding these people scary. Look at what they tried to do to Lieberman. There is no room for divergent views in the Democratic Party, it seems, and they will do anything to squash them.
I think Obama and his closest friends are of this persuasion and the incident in St. Louis did not make me feel any better about him.
"I also disagree that libertarians or most religious conservatives are 'right-of-center' in any way that makes historical sense."
I am not sure what this means."
I spell it out somewhat in the following sentence above. The original right-wing (from the French Revolution) referred to where the nobility/Monarchists sat in the National Assembly. Our current equivalent to the French nobility is the limousine "left", who, like their French forebears, advocate for more government power and less religious liberty.
Both libertarians and (most, like the Palin variety) religious "conservatives"* would have actually been found sitting on the left of that Assembly. Of course, in France they'd been slaughtering or running off the evangelicals for centuries, so there weren't many left there.
Basically what I'm saying is the defenders of the status quo today actually tend to consider themselves "left", so their adversaries - libertarians and religious conservatives - get labeled (wrongly) right-wing, when what actual progress getting made arises there.
* - what they're trying to conserve is the well-spring of liberal values
But what Joe Biden is saying, is that because it's patriotic to pay taxes, therefore we would all be MORE patriotic if tax rates were higher. That's a silly and anti-libertarian idea. Palin is right to mock it.
"You are aware, perhaps, that the Far Left of your party is doing every thing in their power to defeat them?"
My party? My party is the signers of the Declaration and those who've flocked to that banner.
"I think Obama and his closest friends"
Like Reagan, Obama doesn't seem to have close friends.
"why do I need to not criticize McCain ever in order to vote for him?"
I should think a member of a party would be willing to do more than vote. At least not questioning whether one's candidate is a "real" Republican. I don't question whether Obama or McCain are "real" Americans. There is of course the possibility that Obama considers himself more than that, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
"Boy, does this sound like projection. Must be relaxing not to have to think for yourself."
Somehow I don't think lack of independent thought is my problem.
And when did the VC add sound? How do I turn it on?
Don't be an ass. Furthermore, you really don't hear the words as you read them? I've read that correlates with lower reading comprehension. Just saying.
And you're an Obama voter? Given that Jefferson would have recoiled in horror and contempt from much of that for which the modern left side of the Democratic Party stands, including racial quotas, oversight and regulation from Washington that pry into every detail of private contracts, "hate speech" codes, "sensitivity" training and "fairness" doctrines that muzzle speech both personal and political, a massive Federal power nearly free of the doctrine of enumerated powers and contemptuous of states' rights, a Federal power to tax that is openly used to manipulate individual choice, and a general prizing of harmony of opinion over individual liberty, this is astounding.
Jefferson would certainly have supported the abandonment of oversees military adventurism (or for that matter a standing military capable of it), but he would also have been nauseated by the proposal to let the aristocrats of Europe circumscribe American foreign policy in a craven search for international "respect" and "stature."
Weird. Just goes to show that Jeffersonianism is so protean that both Marx and Hayek would probably call themselves adherents.
Mr. Warner,
What, pray tell, are you talking about? Obama's only close associations of which we are aware have all hated America. Wright, Ayers, Pleger (sp?), and many of his financial and power backers. You make no sense to me. Sorry. I do not follow.
I never spoke to what I may be doing to get McCain elected, even if I don't agree with him 100%, did I? You are making an assumption not born out by any facts which you have available to you.
Again, McCain is not a "real" Republican. To say otherwise would be inaccurate and stupid. I have to behave in a ridiculous manner or I am not loyal? Don't think so.
Look, Obama hangs with people who hate America, his wife doesn't seem too fond of her country to the point that they have totally muzzled her, he has taken tons of money from FM/FMac, the second highest in his 3 years in the Senate He has never, ever stood up to his own party to reform anything. He loves earmarks. He loves lobbyists. I see nothing but "business as usual" despite his rhetoric.
He has threatened stations with the FCC and tried to get the Attn. General of Mo. involved in his battle with the NRA ad and has gone to
DOJ with another ad. I find that scary as hell and am quite sure that "the signers of the Declaration and those who've flocked to that banner." would not approve of government sponsored censorship of free political speech.
He worked for ACORN and represented them as a lawyer and donated money to them and they are, again, indicted for voter fraud in Las Vegas. this time.
The Democratic Party wanted to funnel 500 million dollars of the money paid back by the bailout to ACORN. You would, I am sure be very hard pressed to point to anything positive ACORN has done for "the poor" other than help to intimidate banks into making bad loans to poor people that are now a huge part of our problem. And, his Party is and himself are head over heals involved in an organization whose primary function seems to be to submit thousands of fake voter registrations to whatever state appears to be close.
If your Party is that of the signers of the Declaration, all I can say is, why are you not for McCain? I don't think they stood for suppression of free political speech and the throwing of elections by fraud.
Now, please stop with the nonsense. You must be in college or a recent grad to be so incoherent.
I sat today with my absentee ballot and I still have a thrill run through my body (apologies to Chris Mathews)) that I hold this absolute symbol of freedom. With ACORN and other voter fraud possibilities it has lost a tad of it's luster because I don't want my vote canceled by some jerks who are crooked. Plain enough?
Contrary to Mr. Post, I feel lucky, fortunate and blessed that I live in a country where I have the capability of voting. It is sacred to me. It is not patriotic nor is it a sacrifice. The ballot is delivered to my mailbox. It took me minimal time and effort to register. It will take a lot more time to study the various propositions and candidates. I will cheerfully and gratefully put in the time. I am in awe of the patriotism and sacrifice of others, going back to Washington, who made this possible for me, including my son.
But, am I patriotic for taking a minimal amount of time and effort to study and then vote? No. I am blessed. Mr. Post has it all wrong.
Now, if I lived in Iraq or Afghanistan, where the people literally thought they were going to be killed when they went to vote and even performed the Muslim purification ritual before going as they thought they would die for voting, yeah, they are pretty damn patriotic. But me and you and Mr. Post, no.
Given the battles that many people have fought for the right to vote to remotely suggest that you, in this country, going to the poles is patriotic is pathetic. To suggest that paying taxes is patriotic when you have so many who have given their lives for freedom is disgusting. You want us to be surfs? Many came to this country to get away from the excessive taxes imposed on them by Kings, etc.
You need to do some serious reading of our history.
So What's All This About Guantanamo Bay Detainees Being Released into the United States?
C'mon Grover, I'm just getting warmed up.
That said, I really am ticked off. You have to be a complete imbecile and totally ignorant of the patriotism and the sacrifice of our Military and their families, to make as stupid a statement as Mr. Post made.
Mr. Post,
Try getting up every morning for 7 months and checking all the news web sites for "chopper down:. Try spending 7 months preparing for a uniformed officer at your door. I could go on, but I won't.
Yeah, I am quite sure Sarah Palin, John McCain and even Sen. Biden, if he had a brain, to give the devil his due, know what I mean. You, on the other hand, sir, seem to have no clue about what goes into and has gone into, your right to vote.
No sir. You are not a patriot because you vote and pay taxes. You have the privilege of voting because of patriots and fighting against unjust and excessive taxation is something our Founding Fathers would understand quite well.
However, Mr. Obama said he wants to send our troops into Darfur. Just great. Somalia worked out so well. Just what I want. Our troops going into harms way so Liberals can feel good about themselves. Kind of like feeling good about other people paying taxes. Yeah, that's worth dying for. Especially, when our last Dem President chose the polls over backing up the troops in Somalia. Just what we need to do, invade another Muslim country, esp one where we have no national interest.
Did you miss that we are broke and Obama wants to rebuild the economy of Georgia and then Ukraine as well as give 50 billion to the UN to fight global poverty?
Never has Obama mentioned that our infatuation with ethanol greatly
contributes to global starvation and, just maybe, we should rethink this?
Not to mention increased prices for all food products at home. Yeah, Obama really cares about "the poor". Maybe you should look at what Obama did for his homeless African half-brother, George, to see how much the Obama's really care about "the poor". He has not given George one damn dime.
I have an "adopted" African child that I support to the tune of 35.00 bucks a month. I have no where near the money Obama has.
But, you believe. Good luck, folks. Be patriotic. Give Obama your money.
I'm amazed that no one else has jumped on this idiotic statement. Not all of us agree that the draft was a good idea, or that it can ever be justified. I personally disagree with the whole concept of a draft, and hold that the entire concept is anti-patriotic. I can respect those who served when drafted, but oppose the entire concept of involuntary servitude. Yes, Congress has a right to "raise armies", but the means to do so are not unlimited. (no, I am not anti-military-- 30 years service on active duty).
That's not to say that your views are wrong in any meaningful sense of the word, they just aren't the policies that a democratic government should put in place because they are at odds with the vast majority of the populace.
Even if what the people want is stupid or irrational, they have the right to get it." -Oren
So if "the people" want to harm individuals they should have the right to do it even if those individuals object? Are you serious? If you observe a family where the parents beat the children would you just shrug and say "well that's what the family wants so they have a right to do it". I guess we really can't criticize Athens for executing Socrates because, well, that is what they wanted and they have the right to do it.
Yet another case of democratic fundamentalism.
Biden's point was not that not paying taxes is unpatriotic, but that paying higher taxes if you're rich is. He and Obama need to make this point on the threshold of their wholesale conversion of US capitalism into French/German Socialism. Their socialist revolution depends upon expanding their client class to 100% of the population (via free health care with online data 'health' records that will track who, where, how much and how many just to start), but paid for by the top half. Since this top half includes most employers (people don't get jobs from poor folk) breaking their back with the patriotism canard is and will be important. Especially because anyone can see that unrationed universal health care is impossible unless it is also worthless or not universal. But even in failure it will be inevitably more expensive as every cent spent on all of health care today.
So, consider the difference between being anti-capitalist activists like ACORN and another set just as illegally opposing a Biden/Obama administration and their imposition of the health care state. ACORN will get away with their activities, but the 'right wing anarchists' will be skewered for a butterfly collection for an evening's entertain among the enlightened socialist intellectual elite. And should they find a racist element, ah yes, that will be savored in the same manner that Little Black Sambo is collector's item in many cities.
In any case, Obama's dream depends upon 'patriotism'. After all, no one should question his. Particularly when you realize he never learned any of the trappings of American citizenship until after he began the fifth grade. Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem. Lincoln's birthday, Washington's as well and maybe even Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays... What else does an American fourth grader know? And let's not hobble this ideal common man by sticking him in a ghetto. Let's ask it in terms of the late 60's. So again, what does an American fourth grade youth in 1970 know? Whatever you answer subtract it, and add what?
__________
And consider further the impact of Obama's brown shirt thoughts wherein he lifts expanded community activism and do-gooders to an equivalent weight as military service. Adding even a bit of technical ability (surveillance say) to these internal police forces is frankly pretty scary. Stazi scary. One of Obama's critiques of American life is the esteem that military service is held. He, like most of the left, has none and never had the least intention of getting it. Lifting alternative service to an equal weight would serve him and his leftist friends well, don't you think?
The actions of government are, by definition, intended to be for the well-being of the country. If members of the government are acting otherwise, then yes, they will [in theory] be voted out of office. But the institution of "government" exists to serve and further the well-being of the country, and taxes are its lifeblood.
If you'd rather a different system of government, the other nations of the world offer plenty of alternatives...
How on earth did this guy do well enough on the LSAT to get into law school, much less actually pass any classes?
Sheez. What a no talent ashclown.
It seems to me more like he has a fear of strong women, or maybe it's just a fear of women who don't agree with him.
That seems to be a common problem.
Just so that you know, this is not reflective of the quality of the posts on this site now. As has been pointed out above, David Post is the only VC blogger to make posts that are consistently illogical and this is probably his worst post so far.
You would have to think income tax evasion is really easy to get away with, it seems like, to think that paying taxes is "patriotic" (in other words, inspired largely by a zealous love of country).
Would DP really pay his taxes even if it were optional?
While we disagree (strongly) about Obama and Palin, I will agree that you are correct about Eagleton.
From one David to another (David Post), thanks. Ms. Palin is a ninny. No amount of conservative/libertarian/republican bluster (and I say that as a c/l/r myself) will disguise that glaring fact.
Illegitimi non carborundum!
There is so much wrong with it, but I'll note only that I'm pretty sure Palin knows her salary comes from tax dollars. Suggesting she doesn't is really stupid, especially since it's irrelevant to the issue (on which she is totally right - paying a high rate of taxes is not patriotic, and if it's the most patriotic thing you do with your life, start your life over).
@ David Post
You are an idiot.
Mark Field should get David Post's spot on the conspirator list based on this (proper) argument in the face of Post's bad one.
Can we have a recall petition to kick this guy of VC, or is he providing comic relief intermittently?
That's why I keep reading it, its a train wreck. My favorite passage is:
"But it is really irresponsible, outrageous, and insulting to say that it's unpatriotic."
Many people have already pointed out the illogical connection of equating someone saying something isn't patriotic to saying its unpatriotic (a distinction that any person with mild grasp of the English language and reality should get), but what hasn't been mentioned as much is Post's vitriolic language. If I'm going to say someone's argument is "outrageous" or "insulting" and throw out terms like "knucklehead" I'd be a bit more careful in making certain my points are airtight.
You almost wonder if some people are trying to make the law profession (or at least law professors) a buffoon's game.
Now, now, Dave. If you're going to call someone a "ninny," at least make sure your Latin is actual Latin.
There was one?
We could really use a thread all in Latin. Everyone could recite their lawyerly maxims. We could even slip quotations from Catullus past the net filters.
"at least make sure your Latin is actual Latin."
Here's some, in answer to Mac's question:
"'There is of course the possibility that Obama considers himself more than that, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.'
What, pray tell, are you talking about?"
Ubi libertas, ibi patria
- Milton
"And you're an Obama voter? Given that Jefferson would have recoiled in horror and contempt from much of that for which the modern left side of the Democratic Party stands"
I agree that he would.
a. Jefferson wasn't the only signer
b. I'm unconvinced that the Left's infatuation with Obama is requited (see the mirror image with Palin). He/she gives the purists what they crave - respect. McCain doesn't, so he's somehow unreal.
Given my own experiences working with leftists of various degrees of radicalism, and the barrenness of his efforts laboring in the fields of the left, Obama's move toward Daley and Buffet makes perfect sense.
Betting against Buffett doesn't have much to be said for it, and his reputation for frugality exceeds even, say, Palin's or McCain's. Or Jefferson's.
I guess this is the Right-wing astroturf the Jukeboxadvocate warned us about. If anything, it's less effective than the Axelrod variety.
Mac, on the other hand, offers the most cogent anti-Obama screed yet offered on these forums. If only he didn't have a bill-of-bads at least as long ready for McCain too. As Reagan showed, mere antinomy is insufficient.
"But men do not live only by fighting evils. They live by positive goals, individual and collective, a vast variety of them, seldom predictable, at times incompatible."
- Isaiah Berlin
We would like the actions of government to be for the well-being of the country. But often, they are not. Rather, they often are a result of human greed on the part of the governing.
As for voting people out of office, that is becoming less and less likely, as computer modeling is making the decennial gerrymandering ever more efficient. State legislatures typically divide up their congressional districts to maximize the number of safe districts. A significant majority in the House have never had a serious challenge in the general election after their initial election there, and probably a majority in the Senate are that way too.
While government theoretically should "exist.. to serve and further the well-being of the country", the reality is that to a great extent, that noble sentiment has been co-opted by those who wish to benefit themselves (and family). This is true of many, if not most, of the politicians in office today, as well as those voting them into office in order to take the resources of others for themselves.
Finally, your suggestion that taxes are the lifeblood of the government ignores the question of how much taxes should be collected and from whom. By your logic, you seem to be giving the government a blank check to collect in taxes whatever it wishes to spend. That ignores a lot of other issues, such as the fairness of a small percentage of the population paying most of the taxes, a large percentage paying no taxes, and that taxes act as a drag on the economy, despite the effects of the government spending the monies collected.
unpatriotic, ▸ adjective: showing lack of love for your country
Wow! Unless one has the reading comprehension of a 5 year old, that seems to say that unpatriotic literally means the same thing as not patriotic.
Whatever one may think of Post's conclusions, they are certainly not based on a misinterpretation of a key word.
Another common observation is summed up brilliantly and succinctly by "ed"
Hmmmm.
@ David Post
You are an idiot.
This is such impeccable display of logic that one has to be a fool to argue with it. When one argues with a fool, it's hard to tell who is the bigger fool.
disturbing...
In logic, unpatriotic and not patriotic are not equivalent.
I case you missed it, here's a short illustration of the difference from Harwood a hundred comments above:
I admit, it got me to take 15 minutes out of my day to read a bunch of silly comments.
Depends on the problem space - you're assuming a non-null space outside of the "patriotic" and the "unpatriotic" - probably accurate in the real world, but highly questionable in the political blogosphere.
Ubi caritas et amor . . .
(. . . Cessent iurgia maligna, cessent lites.) Or at least the latter in a few weeks.
"Depends on the problem space - you're assuming a non-null space outside of the "patriotic" and the "unpatriotic" - probably accurate in the real world, but highly questionable in the political blogosphere."
Not really. As the idea that paying taxes is anti-patriotic clearly makes no sense, the only alternative interpretation is that she's referring to your non-null space (unless we posit a logic value >3). I'd argue that her position on AGW also appeals to that space. It's the distinction between atheist and agnostic.
You forget, to a person on the left, if a thing isn't mandatory, then it is forbidden.
I'd say being patriotic is realizing what a bargain this is.
So, Mr. Post, if voting once is patriotic, is it more patriotic to vote 20 times? ACORN seems to think so. Just wondering how you view it.
It does seem pretty imprecise for a lawyer...
As far as Palin's statement goes, I'm not sure she was making a strong case for paying taxes as being "unpatriotic." She seemed more to be saying that paying taxes wasn't necessarily a sign of patriotism. What concerned me more was her suggestion that true patriotism was the act of getting that bad thing called "government" out of everyone's way. Love for her country, if you follow her logic, involves love for the private enterprises that have thrived in the U.S. She argues for government to "get out of the way" so that the private sector can flourish. She has apparently re-defined patriotism as love of free enterprise -- very interesting.
I guess I'm old fashioned enough to think that a country that tries to create a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is still something to be patriotic about -- even if our government often falls short of that lofty ideal. I continue to be patriotic about that imperfect private-public partnership that is America. I wouldn't separate out only the private part for praise and the public part for scorn, as Palin does. I certainly wouldn't embrace Palin's view that government is mostly a problem and needs to get out of the way, just as I don't believe that government should try to take healthy competition out of the picture. It's simply a balancing act that cycles back and forth.
Palin seems to be in tune with the feelings of many that taxes are too high and that we get too little for our money. That's an easy argument to sell to most people, but it's not much of a stretch to see that this kind of focus on individual need is not much removed from the focus on individual greed that has gotten us into so much trouble recently. Much of our current financial crisis could have been prevented if our government had exercised smarter and more committed oversight early on, but some people seem to have more trust than I do in the ability (or motivation) of the "free" market to self-regulate. Again, it's just a balancing act, and we're constantly arguing about how best to re-balance it.
This has been the aspect of this thread which strikes me the most (well, other than the knee-jerk condemnation of David Post). I'm inclined to agree with it, but I'm surprised to find the conservatives/libertarians insisting on it. It's they who, for years now, have insisted on the outward and visible signs of the inward and spiritual patriot. Think flag pins or even just waving the flag. All the while, liberals have been claiming that they need not, say, wear a flag pin, because patriotism was in their hearts not on their lapels.
One other point. People have mentioned that patriotism can't involve something which is coerced. I'm not sure if that's limited to government coercion or social coercion. If it includes the latter, though, then social coercion to wear a flag pin is, by the new definition, renders that act NOT patriotic.
Interesting times.
I was unaware that other libertarians had broadly insisted show outward signs of patriotism. I thought most of us were creeped out by things like the pledge of allegiance.
The disagreement in this thread has been very unpleasant and abrasive. Though I'm embarrassed by the other right-leaning posters, I'm pleased to see that several people with whom I probably disagree on most issues noticed the fallacy in the original post.
Prof. Bernstein sometimes seems to post a bit too quickly, but he usually responds to commentors and often corrects himself if he's made a mistake.
He rarely makes mistakes this egregious.
Absolutely. If you're only wearing a flag pin because you feel compelled to by social pressure, the pin does not provide any evidence of patriotism.
Which doesn't mean that there aren't patriots wearing flag pins, only that social conformity has made wearing a flag pin cease to be evidence of patriotism.
So, Mr. Post, if voting once is patriotic, is it more patriotic to vote 20 times? ACORN seems to think so. Just wondering how you view it.
This is a very interesting observation. It does, however, lack context.
ACORN, much like any organization collecting voter registrations by hiring randoms (e.g., Sproul &Associates), is vulnerable to the overzealous (and greedy) employees faking registration forms. Although this is clearly fraud--on someone's part--it is not "voter fraud". There is not one documented case of anyone ever voting under a fake voter registration. The registrations are a way of scamming ACORN, not a way for ACORN to steal elections.
But, forget reality. Nothing in the world will ever convince you that the voter fraud charges themselves are fraudulent. You need to be angry at the opposition for stealing elections, just like they were angry over the questionable charges in 2004. What that suggests, however, is that the Republican Party (and, no, I am not referring to anyone here as a Republican) is prepping its audience and supporters for the loss with excuses, because facts are not a very convenient explanation.
I am not defending ACORN--they are certainly liable for the fraud because their "business" model easily lends itself to such fraud. They've had ample warning and have done nothing to change. But the problem is more like mail fraud than like stealing elections. I will not shed any tears over ACORN voter registration arm being disbanded. But that's not a good reason to jump off the cliff while suspending reality.
Where does Drucker's Civic Sector fit into your public/private dichotomy (again with the two-valued logic)? The importance of institutions like families, churches, group blogs, et. al. which are neither individual nor state?
In fact, Palin herself makes this distinction. Why not her critics?
@ ~aardvark
Really? I wasn't aware that voter registrations record -who- helped register that voter. And since voter fraud happens long after voter registration, is there actually any mechanism in place anywhere to link a fraudulent voter, and vote, back to the registering organization or individual?
If there isn't then your argument fails in many ways.
And might I point out that a lack of incarceration does not imply innocence.
@ JosephSlater
"In other news, I guess Troopergate was really all TODD's fault. . . ."
Yeah because private individuals cannot register complaints about state troopers to public officials.
That would be so ... wrong.
sarcasm off
Brian K, why don't you try it sometime either the Military or sending care packages. Lots of civilians do, you know. It's a lot of work and the Gov, makes it as hard as possible with the Custom's Form etc. Let me know when you've put a few together and mailed them off, OK? Too much work? You can go to Soldier's Angels and volunteer to write letters to servicemen. Again, let me know.
glad to see you're not even trying to sound intelligent anymore. although i really can't say i'm surprised that someone who thinks filling out a custom form is "hard" thinks that spending $20 to buy some random guy a salami is patriotic. i guess remembering that the salami goes inside the box and tape goes outside the box is about all you're mentally capable of.
you want to be patriotic? why don't you make an actual sacrifice and fight in the war that you think is such a great idea? or am i expecting too much from someone like you?
nice of you to assume i haven't sent any care packages off. by the way, how long have you been beating your wife now?
mailing some (most likely male) soldier a long hard piece of meat is a "patriotic act"? it's official, the conservatives on this board have lost all sense of reality. but it's about what i expected from the same people who said obama was unamerican for not wearing a flag pin.
I thought this sounded funny, in more ways than one.
Somewhere out there, there is an ACORN petition signed by 'Rev. L. D. Trotsky, N. Vanguard Dr. (Bucktown)'
(I don't recall the street number of my apartment. But I guess I could use Google maps to find it now. I mean, if I hadn't made it up, of course.)
Would you lefties get your minds out of the gutter for a minute? This is serious stuff we're debating.
I may be painting with too broad a brush, but my memory is that when there was controversy over Obama's lack of a flag pin, none of the libertarians rushed to his defense.
Agreed on both counts.
from his previous comments to this site.
you righties brought salami into the debate.
--Freud's butcher
Yeah. Riiiight. As if that was possible.
HAHAHA!!
Really? I wasn't aware that voter registrations record -who- helped register that voter. And since voter fraud happens long after voter registration, is there actually any mechanism in place anywhere to link a fraudulent voter, and vote, back to the registering organization or individual?
This is funny. It's funny because ACORN submits processed records to the state clearly identifying themselves as the organization that performed the registration. It's also funny because if one wanted to really catch these alleged fraudsters in the act, they could simply let the registrations go through with a flag and catch the perpetrators in the act of voting. Never happened. Not likely to, either--for the same reason that no Republican political consultant would ever want Roe v Wade overturned. The issue is far too important to give up for a one-time victory. Patriots all, no doubt.
Your comments below are definitely worth considering:
"Where does Drucker's Civic Sector fit into your public/private dichotomy (again with the two-valued logic)? The importance of institutions like families, churches, group blogs, et. al. which are neither individual nor state?
In fact, Palin herself makes this distinction. Why not her critics?"
The first question is an appropriate one (although I'm not specifically familiar with Drucker's Civic Sector). Families and societal institutions should play a role in American life and should be things about America to be patriotic about. My "private-public" distinction was a way to keep the argument simple and was not intended to exclude families and churches. If it helps to clarify what I intended, feel free to group things as "governmental" vs. "non-governmental," with families and churches (and blogs) falling in the non-governmental category.
On the other point you made, I think you're giving Palin too much credit for making a thoughtful, nuanced statement. Palin's statement quoted in the original post is focused on taxes and getting government out of the way of the economy. If she had been talking about churches and religion, she might have defined a different role for government -- such as prohibiting abortion or allowing creationism to be taught as science.
Go on, Joseph. Defend not firing a guy who tasered his 10 year old step son, threatened to shoot his sister-in-law before and after she became Governor and threatened to shoot his father-in-law as well.
He was censured instead of fired for drinking beer in his patrol car while he was on duty.
Sounds just like the kind of cop we want out there wearing a badge, no?
Shall we wait until he kills someone? As he is still in the force, I guess they will. He was doing stuff anyone else would be arrested for, Including shooting a moose on his wife's permit.
I love Democrats criticizing the Governor for wanting this guy off the force. Ok to wear a badge and abuse your family, now, is it and threaten others if it gets the Dem's a political advantage?
I think this cop is lucky Todd didn't drop him off his fishing boat into the Bearing Sea.
This would be a good argument except for one simple fact: the Palins deny that they pressured Monegan to fire Wooten. Perhaps they should have done so, but they say they didn't.
A recent example of Bidenism from the VP debate. In responding to Palin's folksy comment about talking to Soccer Moms to find out about economic hard times, Biden said:
The problem is that there is no "Katie's" restaurant in Wilmington, DE. It closed about 20 years ago. Now a "Wings to Go" franchise is located there. See "Biden's Restaurant to Nowhere" Oct. 3, 2008 on www.delawareonline.com
So, while I don't mind that Joe thinks that President FDR addressed the nation on TV in 1929, or that he either has never read or doesn't understand the US Constitution, or that he thinks that US and French Troops defeated Hezbollah in Lebanon, or even that he believes that it may be OK to snitch a Labor Party leader's speech, he fails to understand that you don't snitch their life history at the same time. But, it does concern me that a potential V.P. is walking the streets to go to non-existant places to talk to imaginary people to get his information.
I doubt they wanted him to stay on the force. Would you if you were his brother-in-law and he were threatening to shoot you and your Father?
It is tricky to criticize the Gov, don't you think? You have to defend a cop's boss who had closed the blue line around his guy, if I have my metaphor correct (and I may not), but you get my meaning, I think.
At any rate, she could legally fire the guy because she does not like the color of his eyes.
That she may have fired the boss vwanted him fired because he is unstable and violent and is using something else as an excuse, is still hard to
It is still hard to be in your position of having to defend either the cop or his boss, is it not?
Well, that's a somewhat different issue. The situations are not symmetric. While social conformity has sucked all patriotic value out of wearing a flag pin, that same social conformity has made the refusal to wear one a considered act. Obama's pointed refusal to wear one made a statement. His subsequent backtracking made another statement.
I don't recall anyone claiming (libertarian or otherwise) claiming Obama should be forced to wear a flag pin, but I don't think it would be illegitimate to read something into his refusal to wear one either. I also think it's legitimate to infer something about him by his backing down. Much like Jeremiah Wright and FISA reformed showed, Obama's leans toward the negative version of American exceptionalism, but when the political price of those leanings grows, Obama will back down.
Perhaps. And perhaps his original statement was "social coercion has deprived the flag pin of any patriotic meaning, so there's no need for me to wear one." And perhaps his subsequent backtracking made the statement that "when one is running for political office, one must conform to social expectations even when they have no meaning."
Since I think lots of these preachers, on both right and left, are pretty much nut-cases, I just shake my head at the lot of them.
If you want to make your point with Obama's behavior on the FISA bill, I'll be right there with you.
I would think this would be fairly straightforward, but apparently it's not.
(And the reason why "un" in words like unbearable and uniltelligent means the same thing as "not" is that they refer to dichotomies. There are better examples; "immoral" doesn't mean the same thing as "amoral".)
Kind and unkind? Some things are kind. Some are unkind. And some are neither kind nor unkind. Just like "patriotic." "Unkind" and "not kind" are used most of the time as synonyms. "You did an act that was unkind" and "you did an act that was not kind" are [virtually] interchangeable. David
This morning I tied my shoes. That action was not patriotic. That action was not unpatriotic.
"Unpatriotic" is a subset of all the possible "not patriotic" actions/thoughts.
That is correct. I realize that my original posting confused a lot of people as to its tone, and that's in part responsible for the resulting brouhaha. I was trying to be both facetious and outraged, and didn't quite pull it off. DavidP
I realize far too much has been said about it already, but I have a duty.
Here's a conversation I had with my wife, for real--no joke.
Wife: [walks into our kitchen from work]
Me: [Have my computer on a counter, turn to her with my diet ginger ale in hand] "hey hon, how was your day? BTW how sexy am I drinking my diet ginger ale here in the kitchen? Darn sexy if you ask me!
Wife: [laughing, possibly thinking I'm insane or at least drunk] "What on earth are you talking about? Sexy? What are you doing that's sexy?
Me: [trying to emulate Jon Lovitz from his golden years] "What? My enjoyment of diet ginger ale is unsexy to you? I'm devastasted! I don't want to appear unsexy to you, my wife, I will NEVER drink diet ginger ale in the kitchen again. [ACTING! Thank you]
Wife: "Seriously, what's wrong with you?"
Me: [show her this post, and Post's lame-ass retort.
Wife: "Well, that's why I went to business school."
Who doesn't understand the difference between being "un"-something and being "not"-(including NOT RELEVANT)something? Apparently weirdos like David Post.
Eating and watching TV are "not patriotic" because they're neutral. Most activities are not patriotic, they're nothing/neutral. That is NOT the same as "unpatriotic".
Seriously, look at a dictionary definition of "unpatriotic" (or more generally, the prefix "un-") means to do the opposite of or reverse. Burning an American flag at the funeral of a WW2 veteran while shouting "sieg heil" is probably unpatriotic, while choosing some forms of public service may be patriotic (I agree with others, it depends on the motivation). The examples you chose to use were binary examples; to make an analogy to electrical charge (hey, I did engineering before law) something can be positive (patriotic), negative (unpatriotic) or neutral (not patriotic and not unpatriotic).
Don't push that analogy too far by asking what "uncharged" means...
Make whatever points you want about Gov. Palin or Sen. Biden (or Sen. McCain or Sen. Obama) but if you want to be persuasive, don't mangle the clear meaning of words while you're at it, unless you provide us with a custom dictionary defining the terms of art...
Incidentally, your "explanation" was tantamount to one of the things that annoys me about politicians generally, but particularly about Sen. Obama, he's never wrong, he "explains" how one should "correctly interpret" what he "actually meant".
Meryl Streep--Not sexy
Rosie O'Donnell--Un-sexy
(Any questions?)
As Joe Bingham points out, comments like these are wonderfully helpful to Barack Obama. Thank you.
Yet another left-right Rorschach Test.
Care to say why, or is it just because you say it is?
Do you have a point? That a law professor getting called out on a huge logical fallacy means something about the election?
What's your point? I really want to know.
Hoosier:
"Sarah Palin--Sexy"
Yet another left-right Rorschach Test.
Don't you mean "gay-straight"?
Sarah Palin is gay?
Did you read Joe Bingham's "Hint to fellow commenters" which I linked to in the part of my comment you conveniently omitted from your response?
The only difference between Sarah Palin and other beauty pageant contestants is that she's not for world peace.
If only there were a website like that . . .
Yes, some gays and lesbians are turned on by Palin, but it breaks from there. After all, even I admit there are some straight man who find her sexy -- they just happen to be on the right. I assume Todd thinks she's sexy, and the AIP is right of center, no?
OK, that might be hot.
Well, you beat me to it. Serves me right for wasting the time to come up with the link to gays and lesbians for Palin.
Bandon,
"On the other point you made, I think you're giving Palin too much credit for making a thoughtful, nuanced statement."
Not so much. She said she wanted taxes reduced for the benefit of businesses (private, by your formulation) and families (the third category I highlighted. BTW, unions also fit here). Your original (and thoughtful) post went straight from private to free enterprise.
Public/private is doubly problematic. First, the public is (literally) the people. It refers to that which we do collectively on a variety of scales and a variety of ways, including investing is publicly-owned corporations via our pension/mutual funds. Second, our recent experiences with public/private partnerships such as Fannie Mae and Obama/Rezko illustrate the dangers of blurring the very different roles of the governmental and non-governmental. When Roberts' umpire throws his hat in the ring, things get messy.
The governmental/non-governmental distinction is much better, but doesn't get you quite where you originally wanted to go, I don't think. I do agree with you (and Palin, and Obama) that we as citizens should be more constructively engaged with our government.
One good point, one not so good. Palin's labelling a policy preference (lower taxes) as patriotic is indeed weak. Her criticism of Biden is apt, however. Contrary to your mishearing, she's not criticizing Biden's policy preference (higher taxes). She's criticizing his claim that the act of paying (more) taxes itself is patriotic.
To make this criticism requires no fine distinctions whatsoever. Whether its anti-patriotic or non-patriotic, both contradict Biden's claim.
For what its worth, I believe that burdening future generations or going in hock to China are the least patriotic options of all.
No matter whom you say my comment benefits, I really wanted to know if Post is a real law prof, and if so, where.
In another post, he stated he has been 'teaching copy right law for 10 yrs' ... so part of my Q is answered. Now I just want to know 'where'.
Actually, you don't want to know 'where' I teach law, because if you actually wanted to know that, you would spend the 1.5 seconds it takes to go onto Google and find that out. [Georgetown & Temple, with stints at George Mason and NY Law School ...] No, you think you are being clever! Nice try! (Oh, and just for the record, it's "copyright," not "copy right"). DavidP
Forgot to thank you for:
"Ubi caritas et amor . . ."
Monteverdi's sublime arrangement makes much better background music than that clacking old projector as I'm hearing each word I read...
Sagar,
There's this crazy new invention called Google. Now will you please step away from the firearm...
1. The central issue I see (the heart of what she was getting at) is simply that paying higher taxes is not patriotic. There's really no need for literary jibber-jabber on this point. She feels that patriotism and paying higher taxes are uncorrelated.
2. The second point, which I feel she made weakly, is that it is patriotic to fight against unreasonable taxes (such as the current ones on the middle/upper classes).
3. Looking at the big picture, perhaps it could be construed that paying higher taxes is in fact correlated to patriotism because it may (assuming we don't continue to be ambivalent to government excesses) prevent us from becoming further indebted to other countries.
Isn't she implicitly doing both? At least when she adds:
As for your tweaks to Bandon's comment, I agree. However, for the purposes of these threads, where the discourse is mostly low altitude manicheanism, I think the word Bandon introduced that bears repeating is "balance." It's a nice word that repels ideologues equally in their common aversion to learning empirically.
So Biden used the same line for 29 years and never checked if the joint ws still there. Fine. He's careless.
But Sarah Palin seems to lie every time she opens her mouth. Canceling the Bridge-to-Nowhere? Never happened (Congress pulled back the funds before she became governor and she campaigned for it, claiming that calling it the "Bridge-to-Nowhere" was insulting to Alaskans) Selling the jet on eBay? Never happened (and wasn't even her idea). Yeah, the jet was sold--but not on eBay and to one of her contributors. The list just goes on. Palin said no to Stevens and Young (two most corrupt politicians still in Congress)? Not until after Stevens was indicted (and she collected money and endorsements from both and was supporting both prior to being picked by McCain) Palin cut her salary as mayor? Well, yes, for a couple of months, then the salary went up and stayed up (higher than it was before the cut) There are now at least five different explanations for firing Monegan, including a claim that he was not fired but rather resigned. All have been demonstrably false, but repeated nonetheless. Now the campaign put out its own "exoneration" of the Palins in Troopergate that includes all of the excuses. The lies are completely out of control.
There is really no point to keep going. Don't know if she was always like that or if it's the corrupting influence of the lobbyists running the McCain campaign, but she's toast. Should McCain lose the election, we'll never hear from Palin again. Not even in Alaska. It's like a boxing contender who is brought up too early--he loses the title fight badly and never gets another chance.
I thought Dan Quayle was the vice-presidency low point. I was wrong.
Below "Contact" at the top right hand corner of every page is a list of VC bloggers linked to their academic websites. Since that would tell you where he teaches in about two seconds, I took your remark as sarcastic. If I misconstrued it I apologize.
"But Sarah Palin seems to lie every time she opens her mouth."
It's amazing what one can construe when one already knows what one wants to hear. Am I giving her too much of the benefit of the doubt? You betcha! Liberals are funny that way. Amazing the things I hear from Obama.
LM,
"Isn't she implicitly doing both?"
I think so. Eventually. Which is where her argument gets (comparatively) weak. She was trying to get to Reagan and didn't quite make it. Like the community organizer thing, though, context matters, and here the context was calling Biden on his claim that paying (higher) taxes is patriotic. Which is (very) sound. Good instincts, not so hot delivery. I sense a pattern.
"the discourse is mostly low altitude manicheanism, I think the word Bandon introduced that bears repeating is "balance." It's a nice word that repels ideologues equally in their common aversion to learning empirically."
When has progress ever been achieved but by rising above low-altitude manicheanism?* Which is why I'm not so hot on Bandon's balance, implying bipolarity. Bipolarity is what has gotten us into this mess. We've been divided. It remains to be seen whether we'll be conquered.
* - the Battle of Britain, of course, being won at high altitude
In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not patriotic. Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution.
Try replacing "patriotic" with any of the words David suggests. In these cases, the context and usage make clear that in those cases, "unX" = "not X":
In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not reasonable. Reasonable is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution.
In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not intelligent. Intelligent is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution.
etc.
In all these cases, it's clear from the context and usage that "not X" means the same as the compound word "unX" would mean. (Go ahead and explain why this is wrong - all 300+ of you. :-) )
I can see situations in which "unX" would not mean "not X," and commenters have correctly identified some of them. But this isn't one of them, and certainly it isn't obviously one of them. This part of David's post is completely reasonable even if some here disagree with it. To say it's obviously "wrong" or a failure of logic is just incorrect. It's stunning to see how unwilling people are to even imagine that someone might have a different view.
This confirms most of the comments that have been made in opposition to the voter-fraud meme. There is one caveat that should be noted, however. Although ACORN does not pay per registration, they do have quotas and pressure their employees to fill them. Kleiman correctly draws the parallel between these and NCLB--pressure of meeting artificial quotas is likely to result in unreliable data.
To David Warner:
Am I giving her too much of the benefit of the doubt? You betcha!
Giving someone the benefit of a doubt when they make self-serving proclamations is courteous. Giving the benefit of a doubt when the claims have been thoroughly debunked is either stupid or malevolent.
To courtwatcher:
I can see situations in which "unX" would not mean "not X," and commenters have correctly identified some of them. But this isn't one of them, and certainly it isn't obviously one of them.
Exactly! Consider the dictionary definition of "unpatriotic" I listed earlier. There is no doubt that the meaning in that definition is literally the same as "not patriotic". To claim otherwise is simply disingenuous.
Yes, yes and I hope not.
In a vacuum (or at least at high altitude) I agree. But in a thread of 400 comments that mostly revel in bi-polarity of the worst kind, it's a step in the right direction.
Since I doubt Lincoln could get himself elected dog-catcher nowadays, that's not encouraging.
So we're spoiled here at the VC. And then comes a post which does not stand up to the thoughtfulness that is expected at the VC. That explains the torrent of criticism for this post.
I suspect that people on both sides of the Palin issue would agree that this is a weak post, a visceral and emotional post supported by poor reasoning. Now, we've probably all written like that before on other blogs, where we're in the heat of the moment. But since there is such a high standard at the VC, I think there is an expectation that posts like this don't get written, or that if they do, that the poster is able to admit later that it was written a little too hastily.
Sorry, but for an unapologetically partisan post, this isn't beyond the pale, either logically or in tone. Some of the VC bloggers never blog in this style. Others do. All that distinguishes this post from many others in the latter category is which side it's on.
"Those cases" don't include the word "patriotic", which doesn't negate like any of those other cases do.
"Un" can sometimes be the same as "lacking the quality of"; it can also sometimes be the same as "opposed to". "Un-American" is another example; sushi is not American, but we wouldn't call it "un-American". For a more frivolous example, Dracula is "the Un-dead". Normal people aren't "Un-dead", they're not dead.
I get the point -- if you ask the question that way, the answer is: No, Sarah Palin does not have to avoid chewing gum. So you've made it clear; context and the actual words being used matter. Saying things in different ways can change meaning. Now, please, look at what she said.It is patriotic to ask for lower taxes. It is not patriotic to ask for higher taxes. That is what she said. It is absurd and embarrassing. If you don't see it, well, you don't see it. DavidP
Now Prof. Post and courtwatcher said:
Prof. Post and courtwatcher then use the terms "reasonable" and "intelligent". The problem is that "un/patriotic" is not the same contrast as "un/reasonable" and "un/intelligent".
If something lacks the quality of reasonableness, it is necessarily opposed to reasonableness. If something lacks the quality of patriotism, it is not necessarily opposed to patriotism.
The initial post certainly does not take a neutral stance on the word, but the clarification does. Not sure what the proper Latin is for the logical fallacy embodied here and too lazy to dig it up, but logical fallacy it is.
I will continue to read the authors posts and, for the large part, not like them very much.
It it patriootic to pay more taxes for these things? Why? Perhaps some law professor can tell us why?
It may explain the outrage, but it doesn't excuse the rude, personal nature of the attacks.
"It may explain the outrage, but it doesn't excuse the rude, personal nature of the attacks"
Many didn't rise to that level, but were one-line sockpuppets or drivebys intended to create a shaming environment (I guess? Axelrod's better at this stuff - poor David Bernstein). Are there any metrics on whether any of that stuff works?
"Since I doubt Lincoln could get himself elected dog-catcher nowadays, that's not encouraging."
I wouldn't be so sure. There's a nonzero probability that we're about to elect his successor.
She's saying that it is not patriotic to pay more taxes. And she's correct: There is nothing inherently patriotic about forking over increasing amounts of money to the state.
She is clearly making no statement about speech.
I agree. But I wonder whether Prof. Post stepped over the line of rudeness himself.
"Prof. Post stepped over the line of rudeness himself."
But it's Palin. What would be rude treatment of a normal person is not rude in regards to her.
Does that make Prof. Post kind to her?
Hmmm...
Saying that "X" is not patriotic is not the same as saying "X" is unpatriotic.
He instead tries to bend Palin's words to fit into what he initially posted.
If Joe Biden said, "Eating 3 square meals a day is patriotic" and Palin said "eating 3 square meals a day is not patriotic," she's certainly far from having said that "eating 3 square meals a day is unpatriotic."
That she does on to define the act of advocating/demanding for less government intervention/taxation as patriotic, again, does not change the meaning of her initial statement, which was merely to say that she disagrees that "X" is patriotic.
If Biden had replied to her statement in the same manner that she did to his (and I think given his politics, he certainly wouldn't pause to say that, in his view, "advocating for less government is not patriotic"), he too wouldn't be calling all small government advocates unpatriotic.
I guess some people just can't step back, admit they were wrong, and move on. Unfortunately, given who it is, it's badly damaging the reputation of the VC bloggers as a whole to be associated with this type of blogger.
Thanks for your answer! With all the people 'demanding' you retract or correct or issue some sort of clarification, it was my comment that got you to respond:)
"ask and you shall receive" - I asked and you answered. Appreciate it!
I stand by my criticism of your post, but when I asked the question above I was not "being clever". You may choose to believe it or not.
Thanks for the pointer. I was not aware of the personal info available under Contact: .... just assumed they would (upon clicking) open an email to those conspirators ...
I do not own a firearm, yet. May be when I think of running for office and have to court the vote of hunters ...
Is tying my shoes patriotic or unpatriotic?
Let me try to answer this. It is, of course, neither patriotic nor unpatriotic. That, however, doesn't resolve the problem we're discussing here. Let me try to explain why.
Actions can be kind, unkind, or neither kind nor unkind.
Remarks can be fair, unfair, or neither.
It's an interesting semantic point. It all depends on context.
If you're friend says to you: "You are not kind," do you hear her to be saying "You are neither kind nor unkind," or "You are unkind." I believe, in most cases, the latter.
"John is not dressed." does that mean John is undressed, or neither dressed nor undressed?
"Adam's position is not reasonable." Unreasonable,or neither reasonable nor unreasonable?
In all of these cases, I think, most people will here "NOT-X" to mean "UN-X." Gov. Palin said: it is patriotic to suggest that taxes be lowered, and it is not patriotic to suggest that taxes be raised. You make the call. DavidP
Is that helpful? :-)
if you really think the point of Palin's statement was to suggest that advocating higher taxes is orthogonal to, or irrelevant to, patriotism, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think it's not only a reasonable interpretation, but the more reasonable interpretation, of her remarks that she meant to contrast her belief that favoring less government = patriotism with the view she attributes to Biden that favoring higher taxes (or more government) = patriotism, and to say that her view is the patriotic one and his is the unpatriotic one. I can't see what the point of her remark would have been otherwise. You may disagree with this interpretation, but none of us has any way to know what was her intention was when she said it. But there is no logical reason to prefer yours over mine and Post's.
David (the almighty) Post apparently does. It was outrageous and part of "knucklehead conservatism."
I don't understand Post's second update, he virtually admits he couldn't think of a proper defense of his ridiculous logic, and quotes someone in his defense who claims "none of us has any way to know her intention." Some defense for his flying off the handle with his assmumptions.
So there are many possible contexts where "not patriotic" does not automatically mean "unpatriotic".
In the context of paying taxes, I will accept that a person saying "not patriotic" may well be implying "unpatriotic". I do not take a position as to what Palin and Biden meant.
Look at it this way:
If I stand on my porch and burn the American flag publicly whilst denouncing my citizenship, and if I hand out a questionnaire to my neighbors asking if they thought my actions were either (i) patriotic, (ii) unpatriotic or (iii) not patriotic, I think most people would claim (ii) as the best description, and given the neighborhood we live in I wouldn't be surprised if more people claimed (i) than (iii). Who says not patriotic when they mean unpatriotic? Again, weirdos like David Post.
Agreed
I'd like to think so, but too many of the names are familiar.
"raise taxes to pay for the things you're buying." That's what she's saying, folks. Her words, not mine.
What are you quoting? Where did Palin say what you've attributed? Its not her words, its words you projected to her, i.e. the opposite of your proclamation. Do you not understand the difference between quoting a speech, paraphrasing a speech and interpreting a speech in your own viewpoint?
Does Post just use quotes correctly or incorrectly at his whim (reading his post again, yes)? Is this the most intellectual and academic bankrupt post ever on the Conspiracy?
But only a fool would admit he thought that probability was significant, so I'll just say I've never voted for anyone I considered more likely. (And those votes included John Anderson.) Seriously, dyed-in-the-wool KoolAid drinking Obamaniac that I am, even I don't believe the chances are more than trivial. Messiah, maybe... but Lincoln? Highly unlikely.
Still, if there's one thing you have to concede about nonzero -- it's definitely not zero.
Call me a fool, then. Wouldn't be the first time.
But I'm feelin' it.
And I'll be the second. As for the OP, he didn't exactly bend over backwards with courtesy, but that doesn't mean he was rude. For reasons I tried (clumsily) to explain in another thread, I think civility necessarily means something different for bloggers than it does for us in the cheap seats. Which is to say, they need leeway that we don't.
I'd rather pray you're right, for all our sakes.
I'm too superstitious to admit such things. I'm glad you're not.
He got his proverbial butt handed to him and responds with: "A few of you have tried the interesting strategy of actually reading what I wrote and thinking about it." That's been one of the more charitable examples of his decorum.
Note he never began to address his [majority] critics who may have thought about it but came to a different, and possibly, if not probably, a more logical conclusio. He just hid behind courtwatcher's (transparent) skirt.
I see no way how Post isn't an intellectual fraud.
Those wacky framers made the President not only head of government, but also head of state.
On the former, who the hell knows what's going to happen?
On the latter, he's got the goods.
Try replacing "patriotic" with any of the words David suggests. In these cases, the context and usage make clear that in those cases, "unX" = "not X":
Hmm, ok, I'll take that challenge:
"In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not charitable. Charitable is something you chose to do, not something you're required to do."
If DP were correct, then the above would be saying that it's "uncharitable" to pay your taxes. Which would be a ludicrous interpretation.
But that's an entirely reasonable re-writing of what Palin said, as Observer pointed out in the very first comment on this post.