“I’m not making any predictions, but I think [the Russians] have got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” said Hillary Clinton on her former campaign manager’s podcast. “They know they can’t win without a third party candidate.”
Was Clinton referring to US Representative Tulsi Gabbard, CNN asked? “If the nesting doll fits” her spokesperson replied.
Nearly three years after losing the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton’s still trying to find someone other than Hillary Clinton to blame.
If it’s not women voting the way their husbands tell them to vote, it’s James Comey’s unconvincing job of “exonerating” her for her grossly negligent handling of classified information.
If it’s not the media taking too much notice of her scandals, her health problems, etc., it’s Bernie Sanders supporters staying home instead of going to the polls for a candidate who hated them as much as they hated her.
Whatever it is, it can never, ever, ever be the fact that she’s among the most disliked and distrusted politicians of the last century, or that she ran an incredibly inept campaign, or that she failed to pay sufficient attention to Rust Belt voters upon whom Donald Trump lavished attention and promises to “bring the jobs back.”
And sooner or later it always comes back around to !THEM RUSSIANS!
!THEM RUSSIANS! spent a miniscule amount of money (a fraction of a percent of what Clinton’s campaign spent, and far less than !THEM RUSSIANS! donated to Clinton’s family foundation) on cheesy Facebook ads.
Donald Trump made a secret deal with Vladimir Putin! He’s a Kremlin “asset!”
!THEM RUSSIANS! backed a third party candidate (Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party), who “stole” enough votes from Clinton to throw the election to Trump.
And now !THEM RUSSIANS! are at it again. The long arm of the Kremlin is reaching into the very heart of the Democratic Party itself to once again wrest a presidential election away from Hillary Clinton (or from someone, anyway).
There’s no obvious evidence that Tulsi Gabbard plans to defect from the Democratic Party and run for president as an independent or on another party’s ticket.
On the other hand, given her treatment by the Democratic National Committee — including gaming polls to try to keep her out of primary debates and out of the running — and now by Hillary Clinton, who could blame her if she did?
Furthermore, in what universe is an independent or third party presidential candidacy any less legitimate than a Democratic presidential nomination?
Votes belong to voters, not to parties. Democratic and Republican candidates aren’t magically entitled to your vote. Whether or not they’ve earned that vote is your call and no one else’s.
If Democrats are interested in winning next year, they might want to consider publicly dissociating themselves from Hillary Clinton, who’s gone in a mere three years from even whinier than Donald Trump to even loonier than Lyndon LaRouche.
I swung into Bojangles this morning for a box of hot chicken and biscuits.
When I realized the meal I ordered didn’t come with quite enough for everyone, I went back to buy a few extra biscuits. The woman at the counter waved my credit card off and said, “I got you honey”, and added a few biscuits free of charge.
The error was mine, but she easily and gladly bore the cost and made sure I was happy.
I’m also dealing with the SC dept of revenue this week. Some clerical error has them believing that all of the 2017 revenue for Praxis was to me personally, and that I owe unpaid taxes on it. I can show them articles of incorporation, bank documents, and every other proof that it was company income which was taxed and reported already, but since some form two years ago had improperly been tied to me, they can’t just fix it. It’s still unclear whether the mistake was on me, them, or Intuit Quickbooks. But even though the rep there knows it’s not correct, she’s powerless. I can show her stuff but she can’t undo the paperwork. I could offer her money to fix it and she still couldn’t.
Unlike the Bojangles employee, the woman working for the bureaucracy has no agency. She has no ability to read the situation, adjust, and do the simple thing that gets the spirit of the law right despite errors in the letter.
This is what drives people to madness when dealing with bureaucracy. They aren’t dealing with humans or common sense or decency or logic.
Bojangles is better than the government. Why? Competition. Voluntary entry and exit. The need to win customer dollars instead of take them with armed agents.
That’s it. All the other stuff emerges out of that ugly fact.
Bojangles doesn’t throw you in a cage if you don’t buy their product. Government does.
Moral reasoning is hard. It’s so hard, in fact, that most people do little moral reasoning. Instead, as Daniel Kahneman would expect, they perform a mental substitution. Rather than wonder, “What’s morally right?,” they ask, “What’s socially acceptable?”
In decent societies, this seems fairly harmless. When your society is even selectively evil, however, the substitution is disastrous. Strictly following standard social norms in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, or Maoist China is murder.
Which brings us to a pressing question: How do you know whether your society is evil? Or to make matters even starker: How hard was it for the average adult in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, or Maoist China to know that their societies were evil? If people can’t readily figure that out on their own, what moral questions can they answer?
My claim: Figuring out that Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Maoist China are evil is an easy task for almost anyone – including lifelong members of those societies. How so? By applying two principles that a child can understand.
Principle #1: Turnaround. When a child mistreats each other, adults routinely ask the offender something like, “Would it be all right if someone did that to you?” When you’re faced with complex moral hypotheticals, this question won’t get you far. But when you’re wondering, “Is it all right to murder some peaceful but unpopular people?,” you really can fast forward to the right answer just by asking, “If you were a Jew/kulak/money-lender, would it be all right to murder you?”
Principle #2: Bad laws are made to be broken. Virtually everyone in every society regularly breaks the law – and they usually do so with a clean conscience. This is clearly true when the law inflicts great suffering for no good reason. Yet people also routinely break laws simply because the laws are obviously stupid. A few people may claim to “Always follow the law,” but even these stubborn folk spend little time actually studying the laws to ensure they don’t accidentally break one. Neither do they feel guilty about their lackadaisical effort to master the body of laws they’re nominally determined to strictly obey. And since people already break the law to cut a few minutes off their commute, the idea that they should disobey laws ordering the murder of Jews/kulaks/money-lenders is only an intellectual baby step.
None of this means that ordinary people in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, or Maoist China were morally obliged to die as martyrs. However, it does mean ordinary people in these societies could easily figure out that their societies were deeply evil – and they should at least covertly strive to avoid complicity. If they failed to figure that out, it is because they culpably failed to apply moral principles they understood since childhood.
The moral standards for people who actually formed and carried out these policies were, of course, much higher. I’ve quoted Spiderman before and I’ll quote him again: With great power comes great responsibility. Ordinary people have no obligation to devote their lives to the study of moral philosophy and social science. But anyone who wields political power over thousands of human beings – much less millions – absolutely does.
In recent years, those costs have become a major issue in the political debate over health care. Proposals to address drug prices range from allowing Americans to buy their drugs from abroad, to allowing government health programs like Medicare to directly negotiate lower prices, to having the government itself manufacture generic drugs.
One suggestion I don’t see very often is reconsidering the authority of the US Food and Drug Administration to bar drugs from sale in the US until they’ve passed an expensive and time-consuming regulatory approval process.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, tens of thousands of babies were born worldwide with birth defects. Only a few of the afflicted children were born in the US, because the FDA hadn’t approved thalidomide (some American women received it through a testing program; others used it abroad).
But then a strange thing happened. Instead of congratulating FDA on the save, Congress expanded its authority even further. Oddly, regulatory agencies tend to ask for, and get, more power every time they succeed … and every time they fail.
This expanded authority made it more difficult and expensive to get new drugs approved for sale in the US. And Congress’s mistake has cost Americans not just money but lives.
Tens of thousands of patients died of second strokes and heart attacks while FDA dragged its heels on the approval of the beta blocker propranolol.
It took decades to get a now common (and sometimes lifesaving) substance — cyanoacrylate, aka “human body glue” — approved. During those decades, it was sold cheaply on store shelves under various “super glue” labels while patients bled out and died of traumatic injuries or internal ulcers it could have been used to seal.
No, we don’t want more patient deaths and injuries. But it’s not clear what a true balance sheet would say about how many lives FDA has saved versus how many Americans its regulations have killed.
Lately, FDA seems more interested in feeding a moral panic over “e-cigarettes” to expand its power even further than in executing its supposed mission of “protecting the public health.”
I am not suggesting that there are no dangerous drugs. Of course there are dangerous drugs. And some of those dangerous drugs are approved by the FDA and the dangers only discovered later.
An FDA with only advisory powers would still be able to monitor the public health and warn doctors and patients about dangerous drugs.
But actual testing of drugs to determine their safety and efficacy is better left to an Underwriters Laboratories type non-profit financed by insurers whose costs go up and profits wane when they pay high prices for bad drugs that hurt their customers — the patients.
Unfortunately, American politicians seem more interested in empowering themselves and the regulatory agencies they oversee than in actually addressing the high costs of prescription drugs.
While I’ve spoken about this many times, it keeps coming up so I figured I would do a formal analysis. I’m well-aware this will have no impact on those who use this tactic to avoid discussion, such as lawyers and bureaucrats; this is for those who may be victims of this pernicious method of shouting down a valid argument. Ironically, as will be shown, it’s those screeching “frivolous” that are usually raising a truly frivolous argument. Yelling frivolous is a distraction technique, don’t be fooled by it.
Anyone who has ever challenged the legitimacy of government and the application of their sacred writ, called “laws,” will be familiar with this tactic. When the accuser admittedly has no evidence, they just start shouting “frivolous argument” as if that magically creates facts to support their claim.
What is a frivolous argument? There are usually two constants, it’s not just an argument lacking in merit or arbitrarily denied by a traffic court judge: “An appeal [argument] is not frivolous just because it has no merit” Applied Business Software, Inc. v. Pacific Mortgage Exchange, Inc., 164 Cal. App. 4th 1108, it must also be brought in bad faith:
“frivolous. So clearly and palpably bad and insufficient as to require no argument or illustration to show the character as indicative of bad faith upon a bare inspection…Strong v Sproul, 53 NY 497, 499.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed., page 503.
Black’s Law Dictionary adds to this (also quoting Strong v Sproul):
“…where it does not controvert the material points of the opposite pleading, and is presumably interposed for mere purposes of delay or to embarrass the opponent…” 4th Ed, page 796.
A frivolous argument has three elements:
doesn’t controvert the material points; and
is brought in bad faith.
Now let’s look at an argument I wrote that’s been labeled “frivolous” by an administrative law judge in California and see if it meets this criteria.
“…the legal claims made against me have no factual support, the FTB knows this, and is proceeding against me anyway.” The legal claim referenced is the claim the laws apply because the target of the assessment is physically in California or has a California source of money. The FTB argues their laws created an obligation, it’s a foundational claim.
We know this because several agents told us, this includes counsel for the FTB. When asked for the facts they relied on, they admittedly had nothing, counsel admitted this was an assumption (video below). Those are the facts my argument is based on, the argument follows directly from the facts.
1. Does the claim have merit? Yes; the FTB and IRS operate under the same presumption, they admit it; they claim their laws apply, gives them jurisdiction and creates obligations.
My argument is based on their admissions they don’t have evidence and don’t need evidence to support their claim. So with the FTB claim, where they admit they have no evidence and the foundation of their assessment is an assumption, there is solid factual support. Therefore, the argument is valid, it has merit because the facts support it.
The FTB and IRS are required to have evidence to support their assessments; lacking a foundational basis is referred to as a “naked assessment” to wit:
“The determination of tax due then may be one “without rational foundation and excessive,” and not properly subject to the usual rule with respect to the burden of proof in tax cases. Helvering v. Taylor, 293 US 507.” United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433.
The challenge is based on this principle, while my challenge is not spelled out in this or other cases I’m aware of, the legal principle is what’s relevant. The FTB’s assessment is “without rational foundation” by their own admissions.
The argument has merit because it is based on a sound legal principle, supported by the agents’ own admissions.
2. Does it “controvert the material points” made by the FTB or IRS? Yes; by their own admission they operate under the presumption the laws apply because you’re physically in California or have a California source of money; and by their own admission they have no evidence, it’s an assumption. It’s logical and consistent with the facts.
3. Is it brought in bad faith? No; it’s based on facts, and a sound legal principle that “controverts the material points” raised by the FTB or IRS. It’s a logically, legally, and factually consistent argument.
None of the three elements of a “frivolous argument” are present proving the argument is not frivolous; it may be wrong, but it’s not frivolous. It’s possible the facts as alleged are not true, but that is what a hearing is for, to determine if the alleged facts are true. In the above video you can hear the agent admit the assessment’s foundation, the applicability of the laws, is an assumption. An assumption is not a “rational foundation.”
If it’s obvious it’s not a frivolous argument, then why do tax agents and their lawyers (with and without black robes) insist it is and threaten thousands in sanctions? Because they have a vested interest in the system taking property by force (taxation). They are the ones raising an argument that has no rational foundation and is brought in bad faith. I’ve had tax agents claim they don’t need evidence. That’s frivolous, not pointing out their claim lacks factual support.
What they are really saying is just challenging their foundational claim is somehow a frivolous argument or calling out their frivolous argument is itself frivolous. That is proof of bad faith.
What they do is strawman the actual position claiming:
“Appellant’s inquiry is entirely nonsensical, and while we are unsure of the exact import of this statement, it appears to be based on the meritless contention that California does not have jurisdiction to impose a personal income tax on appellant.”
No, the contention is: the FTB admitted their foundational claim is the constitution applies because there was California source of money. When asked for evidence, they admittedly had none and agreed it was an assumption. We have never made the above claim, this is done to justify ignoring the actual issue. They know what the actual issue is because the “entirely nonsensical” argument is cited just before the above quote:
“Moreover, in her briefs, appellant states that she had previously contacted FTB staff and [FTB counsel] regarding the proposed assessments at issue, and that these individuals failed to provide evidence that the “constitution” applied to her.”
First, the claim is not “entirely nonsensical” it’s based on the FTB’s own admissions and used as an insult, they also use “legalistic gibberish.” What this administrative law judge really thinks is frivolous, is challenging the FTB’s claim the laws apply to appellant. Questioning the FTB’s legal claim is the frivolous argument to him. This cow is so sacred to this bureaucrat he’s threatening a five-thousand dollar sanction for just questioning it and pointing out it’s admittedly an assumption. Like the pope admitting he just assumes the gods are real and anyone quoting him is raising a frivolous argument. By the way, this is the same bureaucrat allowing the FTB to lie with impunity in their pleadings. No bias there I guess.
Some claim the courts have already ruled the argument frivolous for decades as if that changes anything, it doesn’t. Because just as this ALJ is wrong, so are the courts for the reasons above.
It must also be noted they are not addressing this actual argument in those cases, just like the ALJ does here. If you look at the cases, the frivolous arguments are all arguments of legal interpretation, not issues of fact. This ALJ cites Appeals of Dauberger (82- SBE-082) 1982, as support; the type of arguments included are: wages not income without meaning of statute, not a taxpayer within meaning of statute, federal reserve notes are not legal tender, and the Fifth Amendment prohibits the requirement to file a tax return. Not a single issue of fact cited as a frivolous argument.
If it’s truly frivolous to challenge this legal claim, then that’s proof the system is rigged. Irrefutable presumptions are unfair and violate due process because they cannot be challenged, there is no defense, even against an assumption, Vlandis v. Kline, 412 US 441. Yes, this is about legislative presumptions, but the principle of fairness is what is relevant because due process requires notice and opportunity to defend at a meaningful hearing, Goldberg v Kelly, 397 US 254 (1970).
It’s not a so-called “frivolous argument” to point out someone’s foundational claim is admittedly an assumption, it’s a statement of fact.
So when they start chanting frivolous, call them on it, ask them what makes an argument frivolous and not just wrong. Ask them to point out what part of the argument is false; because the underlying facts are not and since the conclusion is drawn directly from the facts, the conclusion is accurate.
The argument the FTB or IRS has failed to support their claim the constitution applies, has merit because 1) it is based on their own admissions, 2) it controverts material points because they admit to not having evidence, and 3) because it’s based on a sound legal principle and the FTB’s own admissions, there is no bad faith.
Regardless of the chants from lawyers and bureaucrats, the argument is not frivolous.
I don’t blame manufacturers or retailers for the misuse of their (non-faulty) products. Not even with products known to be really dangerous if used according to their purpose.
When someone buys something dangerous and makes the choice to misuse it, that’s where the blame lies.
It doesn’t matter if you’re talking guns, opioids, cars, or anything else.
If you misuse something it’s YOUR fault if you die from it and YOUR fault if you harm others. You are not the victim. I hold YOU accountable. And, if the shoe is on the other foot, as it has been a few times, I accept my responsibility.
Yes, I get it. Where drugs are concerned, people foolishly abuse drugs manufactured by people who just want to make money from addicts. It’s easy to say someone shouldn’t make something that people can get addicted to. Even though people can apparently get addicted to anything. They don’t force anyone to use their products (unlike government). They are simply meeting a want, even though we might dislike that want.
So, being addicted doesn’t change anything. To have become addicted, you still had to make the choice to use something known to be dangerously addictive at least once. Unless you are one of the vanishingly rare cases where someone drugged you without your knowledge and you became addicted, you chose the path. I feel bad for addicts, but that’s no reason to attack the manufacturers, treat them as criminals, and ignore the voluntary choice the future addict made.
Nor is there any legitimate reason to treat addicts as criminals instead of as people who may need medical help. Prohibition is still evil.
The choice to misuse a product is still a choice, and it’s not helpful to coddle those making these choices or to shift the blame to someone else.