Month: February 2016

“Litigating (former) Senator Hillary Clinton’s Legal Woes: A Response to Professor Rick Hasen (Election Law Blog) and Michael Stern (Point of Order blog)”

by

Seth Barrett Tillman responds to a couple of thoughtful critics of his earlier post about possible legal issues facing some of the current presidential candidates.

Excerpt:

In a prior post, I wrote that in evaluating election law provisions, including qualifications, we should allow ties go to the runner, expand the democracy, allow the contested candidate to compete, and allow the voters to decide. I stand behind all of that. But in a conflict, should there be a conflict, between a criminal prosecution and an election, we have two competing principles: one, protecting the democratic process from wrongful manipulation by prosecutors and courts, and two, the rule of law, applying the criminal law without fear or favor to all, even against those who are politically connected. I certainly do not want prosecutors and courts pre-empting the voters in elections. But I also do not want a candidate’s participation in an election to amount to immunity in regard to established law, particularly where other (less fortunate) people have faced similar sanctions for similar conduct. This is a genuine conflict, it is not one which I have opined on in the past, and there are no easy solutions.
 
[. . .]
 
I know that my merely raising the legal issues which are likely to arise from a Clinton indictment or impeachment does not interfere with either democracy or “letting the voters decide.” Quite the opposite. Voters who have been fully informed about the legal jeopardy Senator Clinton may or may not face under Section 2071 exercise their voting rights in a more meaningful fashion than they otherwise would. If you do not agree with that, then tell me why?

There is much more of interest in Seth’s new post.

“Airbnb slammed for offering rooms with a view in Jewish settlements”

by

“Airbnb slammed“. So passive. Who slammed them? Palestinians engaged in lawfare and mediafare against Israel. An accurate headline would be, “Palestinians open new front in boycott campaign against Israel”.

The Palestinian Authority says offering vacation rental properties in Jewish homes in the ­occupied West Bank, through U.S.-based sites such as Airbnb, Booking.com and TripAdvisor, ­violates international law.

No word on whether apartment owners in Mecca are using Airbnb to rent to Jews and Christians.

“Democratic Party Iowa Vote Total: under 1,500 votes — 1,500 votes — 1,500 votes: Did the Democratic Party Just Implode in Iowa?”

by

Seth Barrett Tillman wants to know:

94% of the precincts have reported (for the Democrats). The Democratic Party vote is … 660 votes for Clinton, and 649 votes for Sanders, with each candidate getting around 50% of the Democratic Party vote, and 21 convention delegates.
 
Between Sanders and Clinton, there are fewer than 1,500 votes.

Seth’s brief post is worth reading in full.

UPDATE: Seth has amended his post in response to reader comments.

Generations, Politics, and Culture

by

Here is an interesting piece  with thoughts on  how generations look at the world differently.  Obviously there are tremendous differences in individual experiences within  a generation…and I certainly don’t share the author’s apparent leftist worldview–but I do think it’s probably true that one generation tries to deal with, and sometimes even partly solves, one set of challenges, thereby setting up a different set of challenges for succeeding generations.

Related thoughts from Hawaiian libertarian, who says that:

Prior to the advent of mass mind control enabled by mass media technology, there was no real substantial differences between generations…at least not the sort that so thoroughly and contentiously divided us for the past century. Culture was far more static and slow changing, and influenced much more by religion and cultural traditions and norms.  

I don’t think mind control is actually required, or even systematic propaganda:  improved communications and transportation will tend to create more coupling within a generation, and more differences between generations, even in the absence of any central orchestration of messages.

Regarding generational perspectives in general and mating patterns in particular,  Vox Day  says:

(The Boomers)  tend to think of “change” as something that an individual does within the context of a permanent infrastructure. GenX, on the other hand, sees that there is no permanence to the infrastructure, and that the infrastructure is not only transforming, but is imposing its changes on the individual.

The Millennial doesn’t even see the cultural infrastructure, and thereby doesn’t understand either the Boomer perspective or the GenX fury at the order and infrastructure they have lost.