you know that's from May 24, 2010 right?

still, for guys like that, they are expecting to be party members, not the ones lined up against the wall...

because they certainly know best.

He's another reason besides Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd not to sign up for a subscription to the NY Times.

I'm not especially worried about this. He thinks it would be nice to be able to bypass the red tape of getting policies implemented, which carries the risk of not getting them implemented at all. He's not asking for this transformation to be permanent, either. Just a day.

If this bothers you that much, you should have been shocked beyond words when Bush declared on three separate occasions that he would prefer a dictatorship.

Friedman makes some accurate, if obvious, points about Washington.

MR. FRIEDMAN: Well, David, it’s been decimated. It’s been decimated by everything from the gerrymandering of political districts to cable television to an Internet where I can create a digital lynch mob against you from the left or right if I don’t like where you’re going, to the fact that money and politics is so out of control–really our Congress is a forum for legalized bribery. You know, that’s really what, what it’s come down to.

What, you've never fantasized about this?

Dictator for a day. Eliminate all of the federal departments that have no Constitutional basis, but are sucking up taxes. Put in a couple of rules to force Congress to pay attention to the Constitution in the future.

Then, back to your regularly scheduled government...

In the same blog, Taranto's rejoinder to the Friedman quote: "...one supposes the quality of American journalism would be higher had we been China for a day on July 20, 1953 [Friedman's birth date]", referencing China's enforcement of forced abortions in furtherance of its one-child policy.

Y'all have seen Tommy's house, right?

He thinks he'd have one just like that if he lived in China.

I doubt it.

These people aren't being shy, and they aren't making slips. They are and always have been telling us exactly what they intend to do. Which is take all control over every one and every thing. And most of our population is just like the girl who stays with the man who flat-up tells her he's no good for her. "Surely he can't mean it! I know he is good inside! I can CHANGE him!"

Doesn't work with boyfriends, and it ain't gonna work with progressives. Vote! Vote now!

"He's not asking for this transformation to be permanent, either. Just a day."

That's how it starts. Just one little day! Sure, they'd give up power. That red tape is there to make it harder for any one person or party to impose their plans on the rest of us. You should love that red tape. Love it with all your heart.

The idea of gov't being able to implement it's policies freely.....shudder.

What, you've never fantasized about this?

Yes, bradley13, everyone does. But everyone also thinks "I'll just fix the important stuff then get out of the way". Washington is about the only one I can recall who did it for real. The danger of a dictator is not evil, but someone who truly believes they are right - which I think was Amy's point. And which you have just proven.

Eliminate all of the federal departments that have no Constitutional basis, but are sucking up taxes.

I'm on your side, really - but if you think they have no constitutional basis, then challenge them in court. That's how it's meant to work. If you're worried about the constitutionality of particular departments, how do you reconcile that with abolition by decree? That same Constitution doesn't allow that. And I don't even live there - although similar things have happened here in Aust with the High Court striking down laws.

Yeah, everyone has had this fantasy: if only I ruled the country for one day. Hardly something to crucify him over.

Giving the president, any president, dictatorial powers for a day, assuming they have the truly best ideas -- best for the American people -- this would only be a temporary fix. It wouldn't take long before the partisan bickering and determination to do whatever it takes to eject the opposing party would get us right back where we started from.

And as I said, if you're worried about Friedman, Bush must have terrified you to the very core of your being. He plainly stated, three times, that he wanted to be a dictator...and he did not stipulate that it would be only for a day.

His implicit assumption is that there is someone (him, probably) who is so brilliant that he knows all the right solutions for a country as big and complex as the US or China.

His implicit assumption is that there is someone (him, probably) who is so brilliant that he knows all the right solutions for a country as big and complex as the US or China.

That's the implicit assumption of everyone who has every posted on this blog.

Speak only for yourself.

Some of us are certain there's more genius in the whole of humanity than is presently given expression.

In all three of the Bush quotes, he used "would". In Friedman's quote, he said "could". Bush was fantasizing, Friedman was wishing. An important distinction.

How much longer are the spear carriers for the present regime going to continue to use, as their main argument, "At least we're better than Bush"? In essence, this is all we hear from Obama and his remaining apologists. If polls are to be believed, people are unconvinced.

> In Friedman's quote, he said "could".
> Bush was fantasizing, Friedman was wishing

Comment here more often.

Bush was fantasizing, Friedman was wishing. An important distinction.

Whether he used "would" or "could" doesn't matter much, since people use words in indistinct ways, and since there is obviously no way the USA could become China for a single say, then revert to normal. So of course it was a fantasy, unless we also think Friedman is clinically insane and truly believes this could happen, in which case, we should be getting him help instead of making fun of the mentally ill man.

@Patrick:

I believe that Bush was speaking in jest for those three quotes you cited. At least, that's how I read them. It's all about perpective. You can trash Bush all you want to for his policies (yawn), but personally, he's always come across as a pretty humble guy. A stark contrast from our current CINC.

I believe that Bush was speaking in jest for those three quotes you cited...It's all about perpective.

I am definitely not a Bush supporter, but I was frequently annoyed with the people who would jump on everything he said and interpret it as stupidity. This kind of knee-jerk "gotcha" approach is the reason people in the public sphere never say anything real anymore.

Thomas Friedman fantasizes (and he says it's a fantasy, so unless we also think he's lying, I'll accept that) that he has more power over the future of our government, something every one of us has wished for, and people interpret it as "Thomas Friedman hates freedom! And America! And apple pie! And puppies!"

I wonder why Mr. Friedman picked China? Is he convinced that the Chinese government is more nimble and runs more cleanly than ours does? I wonder if that's really true?

Ask Liu Xiaobo. He's the guy who couldn't pick up his Nobel Peace Prize because the Chinese government keeps him locked up in a dungeon.

It doesn't stop with Friedman. Ayers only wants to kill 25 million Americans. Hitler and Stalin didn't intend for their policies to harm everyone, only their enemies. Pol Pot didn't want to destroy Cambodia, but these reactionaries refused to go along...

It doesn't take much to be someone's enemy. If you're not a Muslim, you're already on one list.

Jonah Goldberg had an excellent blurb about Friedman's China worship on the corner last month:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/247449/friedman-today-jonah-goldberg

"Look, China's dictatorial rulers embraced markets reluctantly. First, they killed off tens of millions of their own people trying to make Communism work. They failed. So, in the late 1970s, they introduced market forces and things took off. People got richer, healthier, better educated. Tom Friedman looks at this transformation and says "it must have been the authoritarianism". That says more about him than about China"

Friedman is guilty of the same thing that all liberal allowed to tour a communist or dictatorial country. The NY Times idiots had the same problem with communist Russia back in the day.

You get an escorted tour of the country and you assume that this is representative of that country. Thinking this makes your naivety border on psychosis, but that it. No malice, no evil.

This is a fantasy most of us are guilty of but we assume that either we or our side is in charge when that happens.

MO4: You are so full of shit. If you could be dictator for a day to ban abortion and gays you would.

This isn't just a thought experiment, Friedman is a well established China fluffer. According to him, they're going to take over the world because of their modern, clear headed, gung ho do-erism.

I think that it's fair to say that Friedman's politics are anti-democratic. This is actually more apparent in his coverage of other topics. He's very down on representative Democracy and wishes that we'd all just shut up and let the 'best and brightest' get on with the business of running the world.

"MO4: You are so full of shit. If you could be dictator for a day to ban abortion and gays you would."

No, asswipe, I wouldn't. There's a difference in working tirelessly WITHIN THE LAW to effect change, and in being a dictator. The first is what our country's government was founded for. The second, a pipe dream of megalomaniacs and liberals. If there's a difference.

"Some of us are certain there's more genius in the whole of humanity than is presently given expression."

The concepts of "progress" and "freedom" really elude you, don't they? The whole of humanity is responsible for millenia of enslavement, oppression, and irrationality. What genius, precisely, are you referring to?

"There's a difference in working tirelessly WITHIN THE LAW to effect change, and in being a dictator. The first is what our country's government was founded for. The second, a pipe dream of megalomaniacs and liberals. If there's a difference."

Wait, so you think banning abortion and gays would be okay if done within the legal process, but unacceptable otherwise? That's odd. Either something is moral or it isn't (though I'll grant you that abortion is one of the only issues on which there's nontrivial gray moral gray areas...there's no excuse for denying people rights based on sexual orientation, though).

This country's founders did a great job setting us up to prevent tyranny of the minority. Not so much on tyranny of the majority. What you're saying is that popularity = morality, and that just seems way off.

Martin, given Arafat was given a peace prize for walking away from damn near everything he demanded from the jews, and Obama got one for being nominated for president - wasnt even elected when selected, and was president for less than 10 days when slected as winner, and Gore got a 'peace' prize for a power point presentation on the CLIMATE, wel . . .

Quite frankly the peace prize doent mean shit.

This country's founders did a great job setting us up to prevent tyranny of the minority. Not so much on tyranny of the majority.

Huh?

The founding fathers warned tirelessly against the tyranny of the majority.

That's the reason for the bicameral legislature (with the upper house at that time being appointed rather than elected). That's why they set the country up as a representative democracy, rather than a pure democracy. That's the reason for the endless checks and balances built into the system.

That's why Madison insisted on the Bill of Rights being included in the Constitution - so a government of the majority couldn't take away individual rights from the minority.

> unless we also think Friedman is
> clinically insane

Well, there HAS been some discussion about that possibility on the internet... At this point, we expect to know one way or another within the next six months.


> Friedman is a well established China fluffer.

Powerful new mockery. Well done.


> I wonder why Mr. Friedman picked China?

When bitter teenage boys decide to go Muslim, they never go moderate muslim, they always identify with the most primitive, vehement sects. This gives them the greatest possibility of exacting interpersonal violence on another human being, which will conclusively demonstrate to Mom & Dad just how pissed they are about that haircut thing. Or that bicycle thing. Or that paper route thing. Whatever.

This is what happened with that South Park shithead. Hitchens has a whole rap about this pattern... I'm outta links for this comment, but I'll post the link if you want.

As over-coddled teenage boys are to violent, authoritarian religion, over-paid NYT columnists are to government... They're not into government service any more than the teens are into religious humility. They just want an excuse to crack skulls.

And what do you know! Fate has delivered one such teenager to us just now!:


> The concepts of "progress" and "freedom"
> really elude you, don't they?

Don't be so promiscuous with your quotation marks, pilgrim... I never used those words, and I don't see anyone else here who did.

> The whole of humanity is responsible
> for millenia of enslavement,
> oppression, and irrationality.

And for medicine, literacy and the moon shots. Besides, I never enslaved anyone, or oppressed anybody, or was ever irrational. I mean, if your view of the world sitch is THAT fish-eyed, you should probably just slit your wrists, because tomorrow's not going to be any better.

But as it turns out, you're not really a big-picture type:

> What genius, precisely, are
> you referring to?

The very question demonstrates your incapacity to think in the appropriate context: Human genius isn't precisely located. It's dispersed among everyone who's ever had a thought or an experience that another person didn't have.

The truth of this offends children and Al Gore, who want to think that all the world's fabulousness can be stacked up into a few darling individuals (themselves, often) who can be put on the payroll (or tucked away in prisons, as need be).

And that's not how it works. Also, I just don't like you very much.

cpa: Bush was fantasizing, Friedman was wishing. An important distinction.

You aren't reading Bush's mind. The only distinction worth mentioning is that Friedman specifically asked for one day. Bush's wish was for permanent dictatorship. And also, he mentioned it three times.

"Momof4 and I disagree on a few things, but the above is one thing we're firmly on agreement with. " Law says you can do whatever you want. That's how dictatorships work. So were she (or any of us) to become dictator for a day the law would be on our side.

Insisting government have a say on marriage in any shape or form is a violation of both letter and spirit of the constitution. Just like prohibition amendment. Abortion bans while we disagree can be argued as permitted by the constitution under the protection of life and liberty. Just as their counter argument with privacy. Find where the fuck marriage was mentioned in the constitution.

vlad: Abortion bans while we disagree can be argued as permitted by the constitution under the protection of life and liberty.

You could make a compelling argument against abortion if you could find a single law that protects a fetus.

Regarding abortion and gay marriage, if it doesn't affect you, screw it. The law doesn't decide what's good and evil, moral or immoral. The law decides what's orderly and disordery. You get to do what you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else or interfere with their rights to do what they want. So, if you're against gay marriage, get a fucking life.

"You could make a compelling argument against abortion if you could find a single law that protects a fetus." Never said compelling just said there was room in the constitution for it since the human life is not defined to begin at birth or at conception. It just states that human life is protected and the definition of human life is left to interpretation.

Marriage is NOT mentioned in the constitution so the fact the the government is involved at all is WAY beyond their granted powers. Then they want to add to that power the right to chose which marriages are recognized. Choosing who one marries not something either the state or feds have any damn business in.

Conan the Distorter, said, "That's why Madison insisted on the Bill of Rights being included in the Constitution - so a government of the majority couldn't take away individual rights from the minority."

Madison did not want a BofR, but when it was needed he felt obliged to write one . . .

http://www.jmu.edu/madison/gpos225-madison2/madprobll.htm

"It is clear that Madison truly thought that a bill of rights was not necessary except to mollify those who thought it was required, to preclude another constitutional convention and to encourage the final two states to ratify the Constitution. In later years, his letters revealed no great pride of authorship. In a letter of 1821 he referred to "those safe, if not necessary, and those politic, if not obligatory, amendments." In his speech to Congress the best he could say of a bill of rights was that it was "neither improper nor absolutely useless." This is, certainly, faint praise."

Vlad: "You could make a compelling argument against abortion if you could find a single law that protects a fetus." Never said compelling just said there was room in the constitution for it since the human life is not defined to begin at birth or at conception. It just states that human life is protected and the definition of human life is left to interpretation.

I wasn't trying to tell you that you needed a compelling argument. It had just occurred to me after reading your post that anti-abortion advocates would have their case made if there was some kind of law that protected a fetus.

Hey, two-face! (You know who you are.)

Not only is dictatorship not automatically a pass on human dignity and democracy frightfully easy to throw away, it only matters to some WHO the dictator is.

Note the bill Barney Frank sponsored during President Clinton's term, to eliminate Presidential term limits. Horrible idea, huh? What would the guy do if he didn't have to step down? Would we be in the same jam we are now?

The bulk of what the President is blamed for is Congress' work!

(There ya go, Crid)

I'm just saying you're obsessed... I'm not saying you're wrong.

"Wait, so you think banning abortion and gays would be okay if done within the legal process, but unacceptable otherwise? "

Sigh.....I think that, in our fabulous mostly-free country, you are free to work towards the laws you want, as am I. If you want to campaign for the right to marry a woodchuck, you can. If I want to campaign for the end of abortion, I can. See how that works? I'll fight for your right to fight for the right to marry a woodchuck. I'd fight against you were you to dictate it by fiat.

Shorter Patrick: "If you weren't outraged when Bush said it, you aren't allowed to be outraged when Friedman says it."

Shorter Shorter Patrick: "Because Shut Up, that's why."

Conan: then why can't we argue jury nullification in court? What protections exist against unjust laws passed by a majority? And please don't say "the Bill of Rights," unless you've studied 4th amendment precedent on either the state or federal level. Or read any of Scalia's opinions where he references "American social traditions" as though they have any weight whatsoever. There've been quite a few traditions that were (and are) patently unjust.

Crid: It's cute that you think that I care whether or not you like me. Paternalists rarely feel fond of those who challenge their arrogant views on what's right to impose on the rest of humanity. Medicine, (widespread) literacy, and moon shots are all extremely recent in human history. Slavery existed for way longer than all of those inventions you cited put together. And believe me, it's quite clear that you didn't use the words freedom and progress - anyone with such reliance on the concept of tradition isn't a fan of either one.

But at least we agree that human genius exists throughout humanity. My proposal? Get out of the way of that genius, and let people be free to pursue their own ends (so long as those ends don't involve preying on others, of course). My worldview isn't fish-eyed, whatever that means - it's just an observable fact that people like to boss other people around and take their liberty and property when given the chance. Progress means reducing legalized opportunities for this kind of predation.

Momof4: So as long as you can get enough people to agree with you, depriving others of liberty is totally cool?

> My proposal?

For the record: nobody asked.

Crid, sweetheart, some unrequested advice: you come across as more and more bitter each time you post. If you're not interested in hearing people's views on what you post, then don't post. And taking the position that freedom isn't a good thing, well, that tells us everything we need to know about what kind of person you are.

> If you're not interested in hearing
> people's views

I'll always have favorites, Buttercup!

Rad: Note the bill Barney Frank sponsored during President Clinton's term, to eliminate Presidential term limits.

You're equating ending presidential term limits to the establishment of a dictatorship? I submit you have no idea what a dictatorship is.

I've got more faith in social tradition than the decisions of 9 people whom none of us got to choose.

In one word, Kelo.

Me too, Crid :) They're the people who can argue rationally without ignoring uncomfortable questions, which puts you right out of the running. Best of luck to you in becoming a happier, more thoughtful person!

This has been so upsetting for you... Welpers, from now on, I'll be sure to mention slavery before I ever say anything, to, like, anyone, like, ever. About anything.

It's only fair!

What protections exist against unjust laws passed by a majority? And please don't say "the Bill of Rights," unless you've studied 4th amendment precedent on either the state or federal level. Or read any of Scalia's opinions where he references "American social traditions" as though they have any weight whatsoever.

Not being a lawyer or having studied law, I'll do what I can.

In answer to your question, I'm going to say...the Bill of Rights...and the courts.

In the early debates over the Constitution and whether to have a strong or weak federal government, our forefathers argued over the protection of individual liberties and how to protect minorities against a tyranny of the majority. Granted, they were more concerned with religious and political minorities than they were with what we today idenfity as minorities (ethinicity, sexual preference, gender, etc.).

Many of our forefathers argued that the English case law tradition was sufficient protection of individual liberties and that an enumeration of individual liberties would only serve to restrict those liberties to the ones enumerated. Others argued that the courts and case law were bound by social and legal precedence and would not protect those not in the majority.

For that reason, the ratification of the Constitution was in doubt until Madison agreed to write a series of amendments that would enumerate individual liberties and ensure their protection from federal interference.

Madison had earlier argued that the courts and that legal precedence and the English case law tradition offered adequate protection of individual liberties. Madison believed the population of the US was sufficiently diverse that a tyrannical majority could never come about.

He agreed to put a "Bill of Rights" into the Constitution in order to eliminate the possibility of having another constitutional convention.

The Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government until 1868, when the 14th amendment was passed.

The 14th included a Citizenship Clause (all persons born in the US are citizens of the US), a Due Process Clause (prohibiting state and local governments from depriving someone of life, liberty, or property without exercising specific steps), and an Equal Protection Clause (all persons within a state or local government's jurisdiction must be equally protected).

Using the 14th Amendment, the courts have applied the Bill of Rights to state and local jurisdictions - for the most part this began in the 20th century. Notable applications of the 14th Amendment include Brown v. Board of Education and Mapp v. Ohio.

Traditions have always had weight in our legal system. Scalia cites them for this reason. If you allow the public to walk across your property to a destination beyond your property for a length of time and then decide to take that away by fencing your property, you may find that you've created an easement and cannot restrict passage.

====================

You seem to be taking a position that society in this country is a tyrannical majority gleefully tramping all over the rights of minorities.

I don't know about you, but there aren't a whole lot of lynchings or church burnings going on in my neighborhood. And no one has to sit in the back of the bus or at a segregated lunch counter any more. And my neighborhood, workplace, and social spots are pretty diverse.

And, as a society, we're openly debating some pretty divisive issues (e.g,, gay marriage, dont-ask-don't-tell, abortion, etc.) without tar, feathers, or the need for minority opinion holders to meet in secret and hide their identities.

If you don't like the law on a particular issue, you're free to work to change it...and you're protected by the law while you do so.

====================

There've been quite a few [American social] traditions that were (and are) patently unjust.

Care to name a few of these traditions that have your knickers so twisted?

(Pssssst Coney: I think he's a teenager.)