I wrote words about Saul Alinsky. Many words. Some would say too many, but I think it was the right number http://www.vox.com/2014/10/6/6829675/saul-alinsky-explain-obama-hillary-clinton-rodham-organizing?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=dylanmatt&utm_content=monday
13th Oct 2014 | permalink
6th Aug 2013 | permalink
Also be sure to watch the video: http://t.co/bcoce4Gyg2
26th Jun 2013 | permalink
Hadn’t realized this until I read it in this article. Bizarre how they managed to site the 10th Amendment, which the Court has held to be a truism, but not the Amendment explicitly authorizing the VRA. This could be the sign of a real turning point on the Court.
26th Jun 2013 | permalink
Emily calls Chief Justice Roberts a “stealth conservative” whose “genius” is to conceal his political agenda. That’s a roundabout way of saying that a modest, pedestrian opinion may be more effective than one that, being forthright and candid, thrusts its inadequacies in the reader’s eye. But the real key to “stealth” jurisprudence is patient, crafty incrementalism (no conservative monopoly on that strategy, of course). It’s a strategy illustrated by Shelby’s predecessor, the 2009 decision in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, heavily cited in Shelby. That was a case in which Chief Justice Roberts, again writing for the majority, criticized the same part of the Voting Rights Act, and invoked the same imaginary doctrine of “equal sovereignty,” yet without actually invalidating anything, and so avoiding a dissent by the liberal justices. So now in Shelby he could quote extensively from his opinion in Northwest Austin as if to imply that really there was nothing new here—just a small and logical next step.
Yeah this is totally right. Take one case upholding Section 5 and use it to strike down Section 4. Pretty subtle considering this is a guy who has campaigned against the VRA since the 1980s.
24th Jun 2013 | permalink
Sad, chilling chart showing that then-unborn children are the real victims of Reagan-era wealth redistribution.
24th Jun 2013 | permalink
The country’s top patent court has ruled that playing an ad before someone watches a piece of content on the internet is not an abstract idea, but is the subject of a valid patent.
They really will let you patent anything. Has anyone ever gotten a method patent on how to patent dumb BS?
22nd Jun 2013 | permalink
Finding myself really agreeing with Gruber on Twitterific vs Tweetbot. Twitterific is definitely prettier, Tweetbot is ultimately the better client. It’s nice that I own both, I guess.
16th Jun 2013 | permalink
I disagree with most of this article, but Tristan Edwards is right about needing buttons instead of undistinguished text from UI chrome. I also think he’s right about the slide to unlock. I’m going to miss having an actual widget to slide.
10th Jun 2013 | permalink
Imagine that you’re driving along a stretch of highway where the legal speed limit is 55 miles an hour. Unfortunately, however, you’re caught in a traffic jam, making an average of just 15 miles an hour. And the guy next to you says, “I blame those bureaucrats at the highway authority — if only they would raise the speed limit to 65, we’d be going 10 miles an hour faster.”
Dumb, right? Well, so is the claim that unemployment benefits are causing today’s high unemployment.
Even the original authors of the USA PATRIOT Act are a little queasy.
9th Jun 2013 | permalink
A year in the making, one of the stranger antitrust cases you’re likely to see (because the defendant, Apple, doesn’t have anything close to a monopoly in the industry in question, eBooks — while the company that stands to gain the most from an Apple defeat, Amazon, basically does).
This all plays out starting tomorrow.
Disingenuous way to view the US v Apple anti-trust case. Having a monopoly is never itself a crime (hence “anti-trust,” not “anti-monopoly”). Apple formed a collusive trust with the intent of disadvantaging consumers. Amazon may have a virtual monopoly, but it has only ever abused that position in a way that disadvantages itself (by selling books below cost) in order to benefit consumers. Maybe predatory pricing like that should be illegal, but at least no one is accusing Amazon of colluding to force another competitor’s prices via a favored nation contract.
26th May 2013 | permalink
Senator Lindsey Graham called Sunday for a special independent counsel to be set up to investigate the Justice Department’s monitoring of journalists’ records and the IRS’s targeting of rightwing groups.
Republican Graham, from South Carolina, claimed the tracking by officials of Fox News’ James Rosen, and the seizure of email and phone logs – undertaken in a a bid to flush out the source of a leaked information – amounted to a clear overreach.
Holder is so awful that Coburn and Lindsey Graham seem to be the reasonable parties here. Bizarre.
25th May 2013 | permalink
I find it curious that my own position in the discourse has undergone a kind of quantum tunneling: I seem to have transitioned from unserious pariah, unbeliever in the church of SimpsonBowles, to authority figure whom one can burnish one’s counterintuitive credentials by attacking, without ever having passed through the stage at which people say, “Hey, it looks as if he was right!