Mickey, in admittedly extreme form:
Maybe Landesman should order a viewing of The Lives of Others to underscore to them what (in admittedly extreme form) people who worry about politicizing funding for the arts are worried about.
The Lives of Others was about ... the problem of politicizing funding for the arts?
/deep breath
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Holy shit! What fucking movie did Mickey fucking Kaus fucking watch? Does he think that the actress in the movie was repeatedly sexually assaulted by the high-ranking party official because she was worried about grants for her play? Here, I was thinking it was because she lived in a totalitarian state run by sociopaths with no tolerance for dissent or individual freedom ... when *all along* it was an allegory for the consequences of an unchecked National Endowment for the Arts!
[This is the same Mickey Kaus who mocked "privocrats" fears of data mining, right? ("Do you have an expectation of privacy when you check out a book from ... the government? I don't.") -- ed. Hey, you don't hear him complaining about tapping dissidents' phones and conducting warrantless searches of their homes, do you? "First they came bearing Jazz Masters Fellowships, and I said nothing because I am not a Jazz Master ..." -- ed.]
***********************
The Official Mickey Kaus Totalitarian State Reading List
Prisoner Without A Name, Cell Without A Number: The narrator's survival of brutal conditions as a political prisoner is a testament to the fundamental inefficiency of government-run programs.
Darkness at Noon: The protaganist's frustrating attempts at communication with the other prisoners is a convincing argument against subsidies for public radio.
The Gulag Archipelago: The camp massacres are vibrant metaphors for Peter Orszag's death panels.
1984: The poor quality of government-approved gin reveals fundamental problems with free market regulation.
Jesus Christ, Mickey. THE LIVES OF OTHERS?
Showing posts with label excitable kaus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label excitable kaus. Show all posts
Friday, September 25, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Konstitutional Law
Did Mickey take a button of peyote and start thumbing through back issues of the Yale Law Journal? Because that might explain this:
Jon Alter's latest column--calling for health care to be treated as a "civil right"--brings up an underdiscussed question: In a single payer plan, would health care be treated as a constitutional entitlement that couldn't be taken away without "due process" under the Warren Court's so-called "New Property" doctrine? My Con Law knowledge is a few decades out of date--but the doctrine covered welfare benefits, guaranteeing a hearing to individuals before they could be denied. Why not health benefits? ...
Good lord! I'm a drunken mess, and even I know that:
1) "The New Property" was a moderately influential article by Charles Reich, not a Supreme Court doctrine.
2) The hearing-before-denial-of-benefits case was Goldberg v. Kelly (1970), which would have been ... the Burger Court. [Are you sure it wasn't the Warren Court? That's the evil one, right? -- ed. Warren Burger, Earl Warren, Earl Weaver, Dream Weaver, Earl of Sandwich ... it's all the same ...]
3) What are the odds that a mid-60s left-liberal academic theory would be treated as settled law today by the Roberts Court? [Hey, he said his con law knowledge was "out of date" -- ed. Is it so out of date that he thinks that William Brennan is still on the court?]
4) Hasn't Mickey been arguing over and over again that anything that even remotely comes close to a kinda-sorta-not-really denial of benefits is a horrifying crime against man and God? So why does he argue later in the post that:
[A] "public option" might help avoid having every "we won't pay for this treatment" decision become a constitutional issue in a way a universal, single-payer entitlement couldn't ...
Shouldn't he want constitutional protections for his health care? When you're trying to stop the Ezra Kleins of the world from pulling the plug on you, shouldn't you want any weapon to hand?
Wait, I think I've figured out that last one. Ladies and gentlemen, the one thing Mickey fears more than death itself:
Any kind of victory for public interest lawyers.
Perish the thought!
Jon Alter's latest column--calling for health care to be treated as a "civil right"--brings up an underdiscussed question: In a single payer plan, would health care be treated as a constitutional entitlement that couldn't be taken away without "due process" under the Warren Court's so-called "New Property" doctrine? My Con Law knowledge is a few decades out of date--but the doctrine covered welfare benefits, guaranteeing a hearing to individuals before they could be denied. Why not health benefits? ...
Good lord! I'm a drunken mess, and even I know that:
1) "The New Property" was a moderately influential article by Charles Reich, not a Supreme Court doctrine.
2) The hearing-before-denial-of-benefits case was Goldberg v. Kelly (1970), which would have been ... the Burger Court. [Are you sure it wasn't the Warren Court? That's the evil one, right? -- ed. Warren Burger, Earl Warren, Earl Weaver, Dream Weaver, Earl of Sandwich ... it's all the same ...]
3) What are the odds that a mid-60s left-liberal academic theory would be treated as settled law today by the Roberts Court? [Hey, he said his con law knowledge was "out of date" -- ed. Is it so out of date that he thinks that William Brennan is still on the court?]
4) Hasn't Mickey been arguing over and over again that anything that even remotely comes close to a kinda-sorta-not-really denial of benefits is a horrifying crime against man and God? So why does he argue later in the post that:
[A] "public option" might help avoid having every "we won't pay for this treatment" decision become a constitutional issue in a way a universal, single-payer entitlement couldn't ...
Shouldn't he want constitutional protections for his health care? When you're trying to stop the Ezra Kleins of the world from pulling the plug on you, shouldn't you want any weapon to hand?
Wait, I think I've figured out that last one. Ladies and gentlemen, the one thing Mickey fears more than death itself:
Any kind of victory for public interest lawyers.
Perish the thought!
Monday, June 1, 2009
Closure
Did Obama kill Saturn, on behalf of the UAW, Money Liberals and illegal immigrants???
Story developing!
Story developing!
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
And Another Thing
From Mickey, same post:
Does Obama really want to ruthlessly eliminate all major threats to his reelection?
Huntsman was approached by Obama for the appointment. Huntsman thought about it, then accepted the post. This is "ruthless" ... how? Did he hold Huntsman out of a window until he agreed or something? Seems like this whole process had a quite a lot of ruth.
I mean, I agree that "Obama ruthfully eliminates all major threats" doesn't have the same ring to it, but Mickey's holding this appointment out like its Michael Corleone moving against Moe Greene.
It all seems a bit ... I don't know ... excitable, doesn't it?
Does Obama really want to ruthlessly eliminate all major threats to his reelection?
Huntsman was approached by Obama for the appointment. Huntsman thought about it, then accepted the post. This is "ruthless" ... how? Did he hold Huntsman out of a window until he agreed or something? Seems like this whole process had a quite a lot of ruth.
I mean, I agree that "Obama ruthfully eliminates all major threats" doesn't have the same ring to it, but Mickey's holding this appointment out like its Michael Corleone moving against Moe Greene.
It all seems a bit ... I don't know ... excitable, doesn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
