Didn't we come close to electing Hillary our President based on the same criteria?

I have thought of doing this with books that have a lot of non-english names and places but haven't actually done it - mostly because I listen to books while driving, exercising or working on my boat.  I have The Road to Serfdom in both formats, I'll give a try.

BTW: Listen to Lissette Lecat's narration of Alexandra Fuller's Don't Let's Go to the Dogs Tonight: An African Childhood .  Her voice remains that of a young women, of course, but ,through pure magic, she evokes black African workers, bluff Afrikaner farmers, Alexandra's stern mother, the authors sibilings etc. 

The same was said of Roger Staubach (Dallas Cowboys 1969-1979) 23 4Q comebacks, 17 in the last two minutes.  Some thought the whole Cowboy team loafed until the 4th quarter knowing that, when the crunch came. Roger would get it done.  We Dallas fans liked to say "We're down 13 pts at the two minute warning, we have them right where we want them." 

 Midge #82 I'm not sure, though, whether it's necessary to get quite as specific as you say with details. Do we need to know it was the N-word used, or is "racially offensive remark" plenty specific? And is it reasonable to expect the editors to keep an accurate tally of how many times each member has been warned about CoC violations? Or when a member is terminated (or suspended) after being warned repeatedly, is it enough to say there have been repeated warnings?

Sorry, I am probably getting too process-oriented but I think we need to know what was actually said, not the conclusion of the editor that the remark was "racially offensive."

There is a large range between "offensive," "insensitive," crude.  How would you score expressing this truth, I take to be self-evident, to a member known to be an African-American.  "African Americans are ill-served by the Democrat party, "you AAs are ill-served.., "you blacks are being duped..." etc  You can see the progression where the flag might be thrown without it leaving the fact of the statement to be weighed against the conclusion of the editor. 

I am not sure what an "offensive comment" is.  A rude, nasty or race-directed comment causes my immediate negative reaction toward the commenter, but I don't get the vapors.

I would prefer an editorial intervention that edited the comment in a transparent way, eg "use of a racial epithet commonly referred to as the N-word" (got to remember Google) but left the crux of the comment intact with an editorial comment to the effect that "This comment is a gross (serious,clear ...)  violation of the CoC and the honourable Member is (terminated forthwith, suspended for 30 days, warned for the 2nd time...)

This would have the effect both of defining the line more clearly and allow for added community censure or, perhaps, support for the commenter in less clear situations.  The standard should be offensive to the community, not offensive to the Editor

The Logo #74 Finally, we don't typically discuss Member terminations in public -- The Logo can't recall having done this, at least, and it seems like a good policy going forward.  This conversation made such reticence a bit silly, which is why an explanation seems in order

Way back when, the conversation   What We Mean By Civility explored the dimensions of the CoC extensively.  The termination of members is an issue that I felt then, and still believe is not resolved.  The tension is between Ricochet as a community and Ricochet as a commercial enterprise.  While understanding the rights of proprietors to act peremptorily as they see their own interest, the success of Ricochet is/will be in the sense of community. Frankly, the current level of content does not compel my attention in competition across the entire spectrum of center-right outlets.  It is the community and conversation that brings me back.

I believe that "disappearing" Members without transparent elements of due process and Member participation, or even without explanation, is distructive of community, Ricochet's real competitive advantage. Kenneth, I disagree, but understand. Lady K, no idea. Her comment was removed, and she ejected, almost instantly.

.

I would be enthusiastically available Thursday evening.

Yeah, still around.  I'll contact you off-line to keep the Snowbird Soiree idea going.  Might be a bigger event than a lunch if we have snow-birds like PJS and Duane coming to town (the town being Orlando).  I might even be able to coax Liz Dunn out of her funk to come.

Stale thread but would like to hear more of the NY Christmas Soiree.  I will be in the City the first week of December

Peanut butter and beefsteak tomato sandwich (while listening to ABBA)

I understand that Helvering takes the issue out of contract or property law per se, but the underlying concepts of deterimental reliance, as Duane stated, still weigh as equitable arguments. 

The larger point you raise is the important one.  If a government engages in corrupt bargains with public employee unions, the oldster lobby, or other special interests to maintain power by redistribution of wealth, there is certainly going to be a loss of legitimacy in the minds of those disadvantaged.  The "moral" question will not be resolved but social cohesion will be degraded.  Specifically with SS, many beneficiaries can be expected to devise strategems to avoid "means testing" and younger workers with heavy taxes and no expectation of benefits may easily rationalize "cheating" on their taxes. Not going to be pretty.

KP: I am at least enough of a Christian that I won't impute divine inspiration for the IRS and federal tax code.  Dred Scott might have had a problem with the governing authorities as well.

So religious arguments aside, I could see the social contract theory except that genferei has set the problem: the government has confiscated wealth under false pretenses and may make fools of those who thought they had a "social contract" with their government, and who played by the rules and all that.

You have convinced me, genferei.  The federal government has no moral obligation to make good on SS.  "worthless promises" of "lying politicians"

Now, explain the basis of my moral obligation to pay income, payroll or any other taxes that I am clever enough to evade (not "avoid") with minimal risk of consequences. 

Stitcher being out for now, who has a recommendation for Android 2.2 pod-catcher?

TR, I think Norquist's comment is just silly. Would that it were true that Obama hadn't "taken a moment to be president."  No one could have done as much damage as Obama except by exercise of the powers of the presidency.

He put Kagen and Sotomayer on the Supreme Court, signed Obamacare and Dodd-Franks into law, nationalized the auto industry and much of housing, gave Holder, Sebelius, Napolitano, Geithner, Browner et al huge powers for four years, and set a base-line for future federal spending that is over $1T higher than when he took office. 

He has not only been President, he has been a transformational president in ways we only dimly perceive. 

 Its one thing for a bunch of Tea Party activists, with NO reported violence against person or property, to use (mildly) martial rhetoric and quite another for a leader of a union with a long history of labor violence, organized crime infiltration, and corrupt officials to exhort his followers to "take the SOB's out."  No link can be shown between surveyor's marks or "targets" and the motivation of the Giffords shooter. The links between labor leaders' heated rhetoric and union member violence are simply too obvious to belabor  

 Secretary of Energy is a plausible cabinet position for Palin. Drill, Sarah, Drill.