*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/A-series-of-questions-by-Napolitano

http://videosift.com/video/A-series-of-questions-by-Napolitano

I guess on the one hand, I agree with part of his rant -- elections don't matter enough, and there's too much continuity in policy from President to President, from Congress to Congress.

On the other, I think it's largely spun in a self-serving way from a right-wing ideologue. His big complaint is that the parties are too similar, but then largely misidentifies this as somehow inherently a liberal confluence of policy, when the real issue is that we haven't had a liberal shift in America's policies since before I was born.

A lot of the problem, IMO, is that conservatives like to sell people on the idea of "divided government" and the whole idea that adding opportunities for the minority to stop things from happening (like the filibuster) are the essence of "limited" government.

They've been on a decades-long crusade to stop or sabotage the government from acting effectively on any topic, and now they're complaining that their success means they were right that the government is some unresponsive, ineffectual, cold-hearted leviathan that must be destroyed...even though they had a lot to do with it getting that way, and have worked tirelessly to keep it that way, regardless of whether people vote for them or not.

I don't really know how we're going to get out of this situation, but the solution has got to start with people getting fed up with this blame-shifting excuse coming from the right. Government is not some alien creature acting on its own whims, it's a human institution, populated with human beings, acting in accordance to laws that are voted into existence by people.

People who think "government" is the problem, are letting the actual people responsible for the problem off the hook, because they're too apathetic to figure out who's really to blame. And assholes like Judge Napolitano want to help encourage them to keep blaming "the government" by trying to make it seem like it's some all-encompassing conspiracy that no mere mortal could penetrate, rather than it being the direct result of decades of Republican malfeasance left unchecked by anyone, including Democrats.

And forgive the rant, especially if you're not normally into politics.

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
http://videosift.com/video/Unprecedented-wisdom-coming-out-of-Fox
I dont do politics but this got to me a bit fired up. I know this is something you might be interested in and was curious what you and @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://netrunner.videosift.com" title="member since August 5th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#0000CD">NetRunner thought.

I don't like his ideology either, but railing against the majority is often completely moral. At various points in our history, the majority of people were in favor of:

Slavery
Jim Crow
Restriction of women's rights including voting and property ownership
Forbidding the teaching of evolution in schools

The guy is right that a main function of the judicial branch is to protect minorities against the majority. Individual rights are protection of rights against both the gov't AND other people.

Because judges are typically not elected, or at least elected as often, there was an intent to keep judges to be more independent from the masses.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

But, as a judge isn't he a willing servant of that which he rails against?
I thought there was some sort of rule that you had to be smart to be a judge? Oh... Right, I forgot Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts who seem to believe corporations are people and bribing judges should be legal (yeah, I'm not kidding, sadly).
I honestly can't even watch this guy, I'm afraid I'll put my fist through my screen. If what I said is covered in the video, my apologies.

>> ^Yogi:

Can we get this shit straight yet? It's Jon Stewart. J-O-N

What kind of name is "J-O-N"? I've changed it to "John"... I mean.. "Jon".

I like having Libertarians in discussions because they're a good voice to have because market forces are potential solutions to various issues, because sometimes we do turn away from market forces too soon. However, the philosophy just flat breaks down as any other philosophy does, and I think this debate kinda proves it. Stewart keeps coming back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forced public businesses open to the public to desegregate. According to libertarian philosophy, the free market should have ended segregation by citizens who were conscientious objectors to boycott any public business that was practicing racial segregation. If you notice in the debate, Napolitano skirts this when pressed, and kept saying the gov't should have desegregated gov't institutions, but that skirts the issue of what should have been done in privately owned public businesses. It's a point where libertarian philosophy breaks down, and true hardcore libertarians either know it and try to avoid it because it is so unpalatable to the general population, or they will outright admit that would be their stance and advocate for it.

Public schools are another example. The simple fact of the matter is the general population was not generally educated until the gov't began public schools, and society is all the better for it.

Good discussion.

Part 3: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-27-2011/exclusive---andrew-napolitano-extended-interview-pt--3

Takk!

In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
*promote... his interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano was equally interesting.

*promote... his interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano was equally interesting.

But she's a glittering jewel compared to Joe Biden or Harry Reid.


You'd really prefer to listen to Nancy Pelosi or Janet Napolitano?


wow

@GeeSussFreeK

Sorry to hear that people got hurt . I think you're confusing the issue though. The shouting fire in a crowded theater metaphor refers to an individual (not a machine) intentionally making a false claim that is dangerous. It also applies to speech which has no "conceivable useful purpose and is extremely and imminently dangerous" (quote from the Wikipedia link).

That's pretty much what happened here. Standing with your face pressed up against the police cruiser window and repeatedly barking at a police dog meets the definition of having no conceivable useful purpose and being extremely dangerous.

The judge in the case recognized this and dismissed the defense's claims that that defendant had a 1st amendment right to bark at the dog. Given the circumstances of the case, his behavior is not protected under the 1st amendment. He was simply a drunk teasing a police dog in a county where it happens to be illegal to tease police dogs.

The irony of all this is that a supposed Fox News constitutional expert (he's written 5 books on the U.S. constitution) apparently doesn't know anything about how the 1st Amendment actually works.

>> ^SDGundamX:

He wasn't arrested for animal abuse, he was arrested for "willfully teasing a police K-9" which is an misdemeanor offense in Mason County (see this WSJ law blog). The reason for the law should be obvious--unlike your normal house pet, these dogs are actually trained to bite people and if you get them agitated enough they may attack without command and not respond to an officer's orders to stop biting.
From this web site on the behavioral nature of police dogs:
No matter how well-trained in suspect apprehension a police dog might be, all police dogs can easily make behavioral mistakes, such as attacking at the wrong time, attacking out of context, attacking a suspect when not commanded to do so, and failing to stop an attack after being commanded to do so by the handler. Because of the behavioral nature of aggressive responding in dogs, and despite the extensive training most police service dogs have been subjected to prior to being deployed in the field, they will make behavioral mistakes, thereby causing injury to a victim that was uncalled for or far beyond what was probably needed.
Teasing the dog increases the likelihood of that happening. The drunken dumbass who was barking at the dog was putting people at risk and got arrested for it. I love the 1st amendment but I have absolutely no problem with these charges sticking. First amendment rights don't mean you can say whatever you want to say whenever you want to say it. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater just for lulz and you can't intentionally agitate police dogs into a frothing rage.
I love how Judge Napolitano apparently made a snap judgment himself about the situation without bothering to look at the facts of the case (as reported in the WSJ link above). Upvoted to promote yet more awareness of the stupidity that airs on Fox News.


I agree with everything you said, except the part where you said stuff about the law. While there could be a case for civilly responsible for acts of speech (suing), the constitution on clear on criminal charges. I have been in a movie theater when a false alarm of the real system went off, we didn't send the alarm maker to jail...double standard. Two people were injured in that false alarm of the alarm system. It is pretty dubious to just start arbitrarily dissecting speech, even more so when no one was ACTUALLY harmed. We have enough problems and we take time to legislate theoretical ones, great. That is the only reason drugs are still illegal, because of all the theoretical stuff that could happen. Let real crime be punished, and let fake crime fall away as dodging a bullet.

</lunch rant>

He wasn't arrested for animal abuse, he was arrested for "willfully teasing a police K-9" which is an misdemeanor offense in Mason County (see this WSJ law blog). The reason for the law should be obvious--unlike your normal house pet, these dogs are actually trained to bite people and if you get them agitated enough they may attack without command and not respond to an officer's orders to stop biting.

From this web site on the behavioral nature of police dogs:

No matter how well-trained in suspect apprehension a police dog might be, all police dogs can easily make behavioral mistakes, such as attacking at the wrong time, attacking out of context, attacking a suspect when not commanded to do so, and failing to stop an attack after being commanded to do so by the handler. Because of the behavioral nature of aggressive responding in dogs, and despite the extensive training most police service dogs have been subjected to prior to being deployed in the field, they will make behavioral mistakes, thereby causing injury to a victim that was uncalled for or far beyond what was probably needed.

Teasing the dog increases the likelihood of that happening. The drunken dumbass who was barking at the dog was putting people at risk and got arrested for it. I love the 1st amendment but I have absolutely no problem with these charges sticking. First amendment rights don't mean you can say whatever you want to say whenever you want to say it. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater just for lulz and you can't intentionally agitate police dogs into a frothing rage.

I love how Judge Napolitano apparently made a snap judgment himself about the situation without bothering to look at the facts of the case (as reported in the WSJ link above). Upvoted to promote yet more awareness of the stupidity that airs on Fox News.

>> ^NetRunner:

It strikes me as funny how the right's partisanship makes them twist themselves in knots.
Killing Osama bin Laden is a sign that Obama has crossed some Rubicon, beyond which no man is safe? Please.
Napolitano himself said it's legal if we declare war. I know it's fashionable amongst the silly to pretend that there's something qualitatively different about a "declaration of war" and an "Authorization to Use Military Force", but I don't see a rational basis for it. In both cases, you're having Congress grant explicit authority for the US military to be used.
Well, the 2001 authorization to use military force allows the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against persons who authorized, planned or committed the 9/11 attacks. So, it's legal.


Yay! What a proud statist!

It strikes me as funny how the right's partisanship makes them twist themselves in knots.

Killing Osama bin Laden is a sign that Obama has crossed some Rubicon, beyond which no man is safe? Please.

Napolitano himself said it's legal if we declare war. I know it's fashionable amongst the silly to pretend that there's something qualitatively different about a "declaration of war" and an "Authorization to Use Military Force", but I don't see a rational basis for it. In both cases, you're having Congress grant explicit authority for the US military to be used.

Well, the 2001 authorization to use military force allows the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against persons who authorized, planned or committed the 9/11 attacks. So, it's legal.