The new ratings jump, cable news and late night, is all about feeding the frenzy.

So the person next to you is a typical liberal that name calls someone whom they disagree with because they are unable to articulate a response?

Hahaha! The level of hypocrisy in your statement is off the charts. The conservatives are the kings of name calling and labeling! Unbelievable!!

Hahaha! The level of hypocrisy in your statement is off the charts. The liberals are the kings of name calling and labeling! Unbelievable!!

nice!

Well done. The truth is, neither party can claim the high road when it comes to how they act towards those who disagree with them. While some individiuals act with dignity - there are many from each party that act rather ignorantly. Anyone saying otherwise is blind - reference the thread about my mother-in-law.

Uh huh exactly #pink

They are also the kings of violence. Check out what happened in Portland over the weekend. Those solid, loving, free speech lefties were once again acting like fascists in the name of shutting down anyone they think is fascist. Said it before, I'll say it again. The lack of education among the left is getting scary.

Tangentially related question - not directed only at you Duffy, though interested in your response.

What's your take on anti-mask laws? https://www.nytimes.com/...masks-laws.html?_r=0

I'm a bit conflicted on them, partly because the laws vary by jurisdiction, but also partly because I haven't thought about the issue much until recently. I do think anonymity emboldens bad behavior, but I also am more and more toward the libertarian end of the spectrum when it comes to police surveillance, particularly surveillance of things like protests.

Seems to me, "no mask while committing misdemeanor" is pretty non-objectionable, though I suppose it's not hard to gin up a misdemeanor charge at a protest (e.g., jaywalking on the way to the event while wearing a mask).

"No mask at gathering with intent to intimidate" makes sense in the abstract esp. given the origin of those laws (anti-KKK stuff), but have concerns about determining someone's intent.

"No mask in public" a la the NY law referenced in the article seems problematic to me.

I don't know, but would imagine it does not prohibit wearing bhurkas generally, or if the letter of the law does prohibit it, I would imagine that application would be struck down on 1st amendment grounds if it were challenged in court (with predictable exceptions like obtaining drivers' licenses, having to show your face during traffic stops, places where public safety is a particular concern. etc.). No idea how it would play out if someone wearing a bhurka went to a protest - there may be case law on that, but I haven't taken the time to look into it.

I think that's becoming an issue today, and is a significant reason why I'm uncomfortable with them. That's not why most of them are in place though - see the article's description of them being established as far back as the 1940s in response to KKK concerns, and the NY law goes back to the mid-19th century when tenants were killing landlords while disguised as native Americans.

So just because a law is old means it's not useful and appropriate?

<<Not exactly. It's just not a good argument to keep them in place.>>

Agreed.


<<If I were King of the US I would sunset every single law on the books, including the tax code, and right all new ones.

We would use the Constitution as our guide.>>

A bit extreme perhaps : ) but I agree with some of the sentiment. I've heard a lot of lamenting in recent years about obstructionism in Congress preventing "productive" legislative sessions. I wish that Congress (and state and local legislatures as well) would devote more time to finding outdated laws and either getting rid of them or updating them to be more functional in today's world, rather than just accreting never-ending layers of new law on top of shit that doesn't make sense any more.

I forget which founding father(s) it was, but I seem to recall some folks envisioning the Constitution as a whole getting revamped every 60-80 years. Don't know if I agree with that, but I do think that some of the case law around Constitutional issues has become so convoluted that it's barely recognizable as connected to Constitutional principle anymore. I wish that amending the Constitution were a more viable and realistic option these days - seems more true to the vision of the founders than the system that's developed today.

<<For example, in California there's a law that states that old women must hide their faces when in the presence of a virgin. The penalty is 5 years in prison.>>

Oh come on - surely we can both see the utility in that one...