Worry not. I works for GWB.
5153. Andy F - 1/26/2001 4:25:51 PM
It matters when people start feeling the effects. That hasn't happened yet no matter how hard the right-wingers might be wishing for it. Technically there was no recession under Papa Smirk, but jobs were hard to get and wage increases were meager and often less than inflation.
5154. bbb - 1/26/2001 4:26:02 PM
5149, 5155. JudithAtHome - 1/26/2001 4:26:50 PM 5156. thoughtful - 1/26/2001 4:27:08 PM Ace, 5157. Wombat - 1/26/2001 4:27:30 PM You mean the economy was slowing down in the last six months? Really? Have you told us anything we don't already know? 5158. rubberducky - 1/26/2001 4:27:39 PM bbb: 5159. Andy F - 1/26/2001 4:27:53 PM My guess is that bbb is Mitch from TT. 5160. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:28:48 PM 5161. janjon - 1/26/2001 4:29:10 PM Andy scores on yet another fundamental truth. It will be a recession and hard times when people feel it. If it happens (and gee I sure hope W's handlers will do something to try to make sure it doesn't!), it will be under W's watch. 5162. bbb - 1/26/2001 4:29:34 PM http://salon.com/politics/wire/2001/01/26/greenspan/index.html 5163. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:29:35 PM 5164. PelleNilsson - 1/26/2001 4:30:03 PM 5165. bbb - 1/26/2001 4:31:52 PM Clinton will be remember as The New Economy President. 5166. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:31:59 PM "he wouldn't purposely omit Clinton's role in setting fiscal policy knowing that bringing it up would tick off at least half of his listening audience." 5167. Wombat - 1/26/2001 4:32:16 PM bbb: 5168. Andy F - 1/26/2001 4:33:11 PM 5071. AceofSpades - 1/26/01 12:44:00 PM 5169. bbb - 1/26/2001 4:33:56 PM In this case,GWB was SLIGHTLY ahead of Alan Greenspan. 5170. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:33:57 PM 5171. Andy F - 1/26/2001 4:34:31 PM The technical definition is two quarters of negative growth. 5172. bbb - 1/26/2001 4:35:38 PM In this case,GWB was SLIGHTLY ahead of Alan Greenspan. 5173. JudithAtHome - 1/26/2001 4:35:43 PM 5174. Andy F - 1/26/2001 4:36:46 PM The only mistake is underestimating the lengths to which Rehnquist and Scalia will go to ignore their oaths and put a Republican in the White House. 5175. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:37:27 PM 5176. bbb - 1/26/2001 4:37:44 PM Andy F. 5177. JudithAtHome - 1/26/2001 4:38:49 PM 5178. bbb - 1/26/2001 4:38:50 PM andy f. 5179. janjon - 1/26/2001 4:39:57 PM you have to have lost something to be a sore loser. 5180. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:40:07 PM 5181. OhioSTOPAS - 1/26/2001 4:41:21 PM Re the Reagans' Bel Air house: 5182. JJBiener - 1/26/2001 4:41:23 PM Pelle - Clinton will be remember as The New Economy President. 5183. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:43:25 PM 5184. janjon - 1/26/2001 4:46:53 PM The only magic talismanic power relating to this discussion is that people are going to equate the Clinton years with GOOD TIMES. 5185. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:48:31 PM 5186. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:49:25 PM 5187. CalGal - 1/26/2001 4:49:48 PM Greenspan probably *is* a liberal. 5188. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:51:57 PM 5189. azazel - 1/26/2001 4:52:29 PM This just in from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1996) 5190. janjon - 1/26/2001 4:52:45 PM He cheats at tennis. 5191. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:53:23 PM 5192. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 4:55:22 PM "Of course, it's not a "rigid" technical definition and therefore most likely unacceptable, right Ace?" 5193. JJBiener - 1/26/2001 4:58:40 PM janjon - The only magic talismanic power relating to this discussion is that people are going to equate the Clinton years with GOOD TIMES. 5194. AceofSpades - 1/26/2001 5:00:24 PM 5195. azazel - 1/26/2001 5:02:39 PM As for Greenspan, he and his cronies at the FRB are concerned with one thing and one thing only: capital preservation (theirs and those of their ilk, that is). To the extent that any particular political agenda (from either side of the aisle) meets with FRB objectives, so much the better for them. And since the tendencies of the GOP tend to favor those with massive amounts of capital, one might see some correlation in the words and deeds of the Fed Chairman with the panderings of the Republicrats. 5196. dusty - 1/26/2001 5:37:31 PM Message # 5171 Andy F 5197. wonkers2 - 1/26/2001 5:42:35 PM This week's The New Republic just came in the mail. Guess whose picture is on the cover--John Ashcroft. Next to his tensely smiling face in bold print is "NO DON'T CONFIRM JOHN ASHCROFT." 5198. Cellar Door - 1/26/2001 6:07:38 PM Only Ace would call Andrea Mitchell a liberal. 5199. JudithAtHome - 1/26/2001 6:37:03 PM 5200. CharlieL - 1/26/2001 6:40:29 PM bbb = poor, impotent andy. 5201. Rosetta Stone - 1/26/2001 6:50:20 PM haha. 5202. dusty - 1/26/2001 6:56:23 PM JudithAtHome 5203. dusty - 1/26/2001 7:02:24 PM JudithAtHome 5204. CalGal - 1/26/2001 7:04:26 PM Ace, 5205. CalGal - 1/26/2001 7:05:14 PM Also, Greenspan got his start with Ford and all of his political connections are with moderate Republicans. 5206. Rosetta Stone - 1/26/2001 7:22:37 PM Greenspan voted for Bush over Gore, NPR reported this morning. His wife, the opposite. 5207. jexster - 1/26/2001 8:36:52 PM 5208. jexster - 1/26/2001 8:37:54 PM 5209. jexster - 1/26/2001 8:38:19 PM 5210. jexster - 1/26/2001 8:39:02 PM 5211. jexster - 1/26/2001 8:59:25 PM Slate 5212. Cellar Door - 1/26/2001 9:30:01 PM The fact that Ashcroft found it necessary to lie is definitive proof that Gay Power is here to stay. 5213. Rosetta Stone - 1/26/2001 9:31:16 PM Slate is comparing what President Clinton did with fat Monica, the intern, to John Ashcroft not remembering a (if it even happened at all) job-interview question with someone fifteen years ago in 1985? 5214. Cellar Door - 1/26/2001 9:31:55 PM What makes you think I can't produce my own children, Rosie? 5215. Rosetta Stone - 1/26/2001 9:37:17 PM That post was directed to the individual who called bbb "impotent," CD. 5216. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 12:29:27 AM 5217. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 12:29:51 AM 5218. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 12:32:08 AM 5219. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 12:34:46 AM and the night included brief, honest admissions... 5220. Cellar Door - 1/27/2001 1:01:09 AM Maybe you should start a "Memory Lane" thread, Ace. 5221. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 1:44:04 AM 5222. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 1:47:08 AM 5223. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 1:51:58 AM 5224. CalGal - 1/27/2001 1:53:50 AM Democrats had the most voided votes in Florida 5225. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 1:59:09 AM 5226. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 2:01:50 AM "The study found that the 8,000 voters whose ballots were thrown out because they chose Gore and one of the two other presidential candidates listed near him voted more than 10 to 1 Democratic in the U.S. Senate race." 5227. CalGal - 1/27/2001 2:07:38 AM Yes, the article does say. You don't read. 5228. Stumbo - 1/27/2001 2:12:18 AM So, if the implication of that story is indeed correct, it would indicate that a vast majority of stupid people vote Democratic. 5229. CalGal - 1/27/2001 2:18:52 AM Stumbo, 5230. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 2:26:21 AM 5231. Stumbo - 1/27/2001 2:26:50 AM Yeah, Dem voters fuck up. Just can't punch Dem holes in Dem ballots. 5232. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 2:33:00 AM ""However, in general, it just reinforces the fact that, were it not for hideously bad luck, Gore would have won and it wouldn't even have been close." 5233. CalGal - 1/27/2001 2:36:14 AM Ace, 5234. CalGal - 1/27/2001 2:40:26 AM There was no abberration of chance. 5235. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 2:44:42 AM 5236. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 2:45:55 AM 5237. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 2:48:55 AM 5238. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 2:56:39 AM 5239. CalGal - 1/27/2001 2:56:52 AM It is your claim that the slightest bit of inconvenience discourages poor minorities from the polls... but you simultaneously claim you can tell three million people that the election is OVER and that won't affect voter turnout in the least! 5240. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 3:01:21 AM ...are all the same sort of mighta coulda shoulda stuff... 5241. Stumbo - 1/27/2001 3:03:17 AM Ace, #5236: 5242. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 3:04:12 AM "issue of outcomes being affected or votes lost due to results being announced early has been studied extensively since 1980 and it has been demonstrated consistently that it doesn't make any difference." 5243. CalGal - 1/27/2001 3:05:42 AM ...as people who fuck up on ballots. 5244. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 3:08:56 AM "Because these are people who made it to the polls." 5245. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 3:11:01 AM I see my questions have gone unanswered again. 5246. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 3:13:12 AM 5247. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 3:18:37 AM 5248. CalGal - 1/27/2001 3:23:10 AM Ace, 5249. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 3:26:05 AM 5250. Stumbo - 1/27/2001 3:29:44 AM One extra quibble about the Panhandle thing: 5251. CalGal - 1/27/2001 3:41:30 AM Technically, they didn't. They INTENDED to vote, but they didn't. What they did was spoil a ballot. 5252. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 3:44:12 AM 5253. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 3:49:06 AM 'Because the perception is what matters, and at this point, the media coverage focuses on counting what can be counted, which is the people who went to the polls and tried to vote. All the data coming in supports the perception that, with a little less crappy luck, Gore would have won handily" 5254. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 3:51:59 AM 5255. Stumbo - 1/27/2001 3:53:14 AM Correction to #5250: 5256. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 3:55:51 AM 5257. Stumbo - 1/27/2001 4:16:38 AM Potential counter-quibble: 5258. CalGal - 1/27/2001 4:55:32 AM Ace, 5259. OhioSTOPAS - 1/27/2001 6:27:16 AM Ace (Message # 5230): 5260. Rosetta Stone - 1/27/2001 7:11:26 AM It wasn't 11 minutes. It was an hour and 11 minutes. 5261. Rosetta Stone - 1/27/2001 8:44:45 AM LEGAL GROUP FILES COMPLAINT AGAINST WHITE-TRASH CLINTONS 5262. Rosetta Stone - 1/27/2001 9:23:34 AM FOR THE CLINTONS' LAST ACT, REVIEWS DON'T LOOK GOOD, ACCORDING TO THE LIBERAL WASHINGTON POST 5263. OhioSTOPAS - 1/27/2001 10:21:57 AM 5260: It was 11 minutes. Wrong as usual, Rosie. 5264. JudithAtHome - 1/27/2001 10:53:40 AM 5265. JudithAtHome - 1/27/2001 10:55:11 AM 5266. Rosetta Stone - 1/27/2001 11:24:02 AM To: Dumb and Dumber 5267. JudithAtHome - 1/27/2001 11:25:43 AM 5268. OhioSTOPAS - 1/27/2001 11:49:44 AM Rosie, pay attention: 5269. JudithAtHome - 1/27/2001 12:44:30 PM 5270. Cellar Door - 1/27/2001 12:45:37 PM We'll send the students and teachers to all those new prisons they've been building, of course. 5271. JudithAtHome - 1/27/2001 12:47:37 PM 5272. jonesatlaw - 1/27/2001 1:08:36 PM Sigh, the Big Panhandle Lie again. As Ohio points out, the call came at 11 minutes till polls in the panhandle closed. So voters discouraged would have been people who were interested enough in the outcome to watch the news reports of it yet hadn't voted 11 minutes till closing time, lived less than 10 minutes drive from the polls; wanted to vote for Bush, trusted the prediction to be accurate; didn't care enough about any other race to go and vote despite the presidential call; and would have got off their procrastinating asses to vote had the prediction not came while they were watching TV instead of going to the polls with 11 minutes left to vote. 40,000 people fit these criteria according to your scenario. Well, you bought Reagan's pledge to cut taxes, the deficit while making monsterous increases in military spending. Do you guys ever think about this stuff before reguritating the big lie? 5273. jonesatlaw - 1/27/2001 1:13:28 PM Ace:(finding his girlfriend on her knees in front of his grandfather) 5274. JudithAtHome - 1/27/2001 1:18:18 PM 5275. JudithAtHome - 1/27/2001 1:19:20 PM 5276. JudithAtHome - 1/27/2001 1:34:34 PM 5277. Rosetta Stone - 1/27/2001 2:16:22 PM The poll booths didn't close in Florida at 7 pm. Think 8. 5278. Rosetta Stone - 1/27/2001 2:18:47 PM Still looking for attention, MsnitchjuDY? Deal with your bloody toys!!!! 5279. CalGal - 1/27/2001 2:20:58 PM 5280. JJBiener - 1/27/2001 2:46:04 PM Judith - I want to know what we're going to do with all the public schools which are considered failing and which, according to him, "can not or will not change". 5281. robertjayb - 1/27/2001 3:17:35 PM . 5282. robertjayb - 1/27/2001 3:23:20 PM . 5283. Rosetta Stone - 1/27/2001 3:45:14 PM According to today's Washington Post, Bill Chappaqua Clinton is furious over the uproar caused by his last minute pardons, White House vandalism, and other final-days controversies. Without his DNC warroom to help him, he's finding it hard to get control of the story. When Democratic hack Mark Shields of PBS disses you on Newshour, you know you're in trouble 5284. labwabbit - 1/27/2001 4:01:29 PM Part of changing the tone in Washington is to allow some things that others may have made a focus of, to let pass 5285. Stumbo - 1/27/2001 4:04:17 PM Jones, #5272: 5286. jonesatlaw - 1/27/2001 4:44:16 PM Stumbo- unless you assume simultaneous radio broadcasts of the TV networks predictions, which of course themselves did not occur simultaneously, you are talking about people who would have been trying to get to the polls in the last 7-8 minutes. This was a huge contest, with a great deal of interest and excitement, do you seriously believe that there was a huge number of people cruising around in their cars two hours after work is out thinking "maybe I'll go vote, ah shucks, Tom Brokaw predicts Gore wins I guess I'll go get a beer, and not vote at all." 5287. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 4:53:07 PM Jones-- 5288. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 4:56:00 PM "do you seriously believe that there was a huge number of people cruising around in their cars two hours after work is out thinking "maybe I'll go vote, ah shucks" 5289. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 4:57:43 PM 5290. Stumbo - 1/27/2001 5:03:12 PM Jones: 5291. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 5:12:39 PM 5292. AceofSpades - 1/27/2001 5:14:37 PM "And news-stations are always either the #1 or #2 ranked station in any market." 5293. Rosetta Stone - 1/27/2001 5:15:20 PM Okay, Ohio, I'm wrong, if the polls in Florida closed at 7 p.m., not 8 like the rest of the country (other than St. Louis, MO, where they stayed open illegally until 9:15 to help the Democrats). 5294. Al D - 1/27/2001 9:03:40 PM THE PRESIDENT: A week ago today I received a great honor, and all the great responsibilities that come with it. The first order of business is education reform, and we have started strong. 5295. Al D - 1/27/2001 9:06:50 PM (cont.) 5296. Al D - 1/27/2001 9:07:40 PM (cont.) 5297. Stumbo - 1/27/2001 9:42:31 PM 5298. ranheim - 1/27/2001 9:55:54 PM #5287 Ace 5299. joezan - 1/27/2001 10:07:27 PM 5300. joezan - 1/27/2001 10:11:00 PM 5301. Stumbo - 1/27/2001 10:22:58 PM ... Or perhaps they thought it was cute how the curve of the coastline followed that of Larry's shoulder. 5302. joezan - 1/27/2001 10:41:57 PM 5303. joezan - 1/27/2001 11:15:22 PM 5304. jonesatlaw - 1/27/2001 11:32:59 PM Ace- keep changing the scenario, because what you originally posted was crap and you know it. First it's the TV networks fault. Once the idiocy of pointing out that 11 minutes to polls closing in the CDT portion of Florida lost the GOP 40,000 voters hardly would effect the folks in line as I doubt that they were watching TV in line, we switch to radio. Anyone care to venture a guess or better yet cite factually what time delay there was between the first network calling Florida and the second TV network? How about the first radio network or radio station in Florida to call it? Then how many people were standing in line and actually LEFT after hearing the news on the radio? Even allowing for procrastination, you are positing that there were far more voters in those last 10 minutes than in the hours before. 5305. Stumbo - 1/27/2001 11:52:19 PM Jones: 5306. jonesatlaw - 1/28/2001 12:20:48 AM Stumbo- You assume a person knowledgable about the network coverage to remember their pledge not to call races before the polls close, and yet too stupid to know when THEIR polling place closes or too stupid to read their watch. Such people may exist in Florida, but even in that screwed up state I think 40,000 is far too high a number for nine counties with only Pensacola as a population center among them. 5307. Stumbo - 1/28/2001 12:44:14 AM Jones: 5308. Autodaffy - 1/28/2001 12:46:26 AM This seems the right time and place to say that the South actually won the Civil War, and all the northern spinning that anyone can come up with will ever change that. 5309. OhioSTOPAS - 1/28/2001 6:38:33 AM Ace (Message # 5287 et seq) 5310. PelleNilsson - 1/28/2001 6:53:02 AM 5311. OhioSTOPAS - 1/28/2001 7:18:52 AM Good morning, Pelle! (Or to you should I say "Good afternoon"?) 5312. PelleNilsson - 1/28/2001 7:23:05 AM 5313. Rosetta Stone - 1/28/2001 9:01:26 AM 5314. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/28/2001 1:29:47 PM Young ones! Parental units! We summon you! 5315. Cellar Door - 1/28/2001 1:34:52 PM Yeah, the DNC sure wants Safire on the editorial board of its house organ --right Rosie? 5316. AceofSpades - 1/28/2001 1:50:07 PM There were no "sworn affidavits" about people leaving Panhandle voting lines in the last 11 minutes, just unproven anecdotes. 5317. AceofSpades - 1/28/2001 1:52:54 PM 5318. concerned - 1/28/2001 2:43:55 PM 5319. OhioSTOPAS - 1/28/2001 2:47:51 PM Republicans haven't tried hard enough to identify "disenfranchised" Republican voters in the Florida Panhandle? Please. 5320. AceofSpades - 1/28/2001 2:48:02 PM 5321. AceofSpades - 1/28/2001 2:49:58 PM 5322. concerned - 1/28/2001 2:53:10 PM I remember that immediately after the election, DNC operatives were spreading rumors by phone of 'disenfranchisement'. There was never anything to back this up and no specific cases were ever cited. 5323. Cellar Door - 1/28/2001 2:54:55 PM People on the "editorial board" do something called "editing." 5324. Rosetta Stone - 1/28/2001 3:01:38 PM New York Times columnist William Safire disliked President George H. Bush so much that he voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. I heard him admit it myself. 5325. Rosetta Stone - 1/28/2001 3:03:46 PM I don't think... 5326. PsychProf - 1/28/2001 3:04:27 PM We know. 5327. concerned - 1/28/2001 3:05:22 PM Re. 5323 - 5328. concerned - 1/28/2001 3:06:13 PM simplistic 5329. AceofSpades - 1/28/2001 3:20:34 PM "Safire's influence at the NYT (and with the Pulitzer committee too), is spread far and wide." 5330. wonkers2 - 1/28/2001 3:32:43 PM KRUGMAN SAYS GREENSPAN IS OFF THE RESERVATION AND, IN SO MANY WORDS, FULL OF SHIT--nyt OP-ED 1-28 5331. wonkers2 - 1/28/2001 3:42:40 PM Krugman on Greenspan contd 5332. concerned - 1/28/2001 3:42:54 PM I really don't see a problem with the US government maintaining a level of debt equal to, say, 10% or so of its yearly budget since a satisfactory solution to sustaining a net positive valuation is not likely to be arrived at, and doing so only encourages politicians to increase wasteful pork. 5333. Cellar Door - 1/28/2001 3:53:27 PM Does the name Wen Ho Lee ring a bell, o Ass of Hole? 5334. Cellar Door - 1/28/2001 3:54:57 PM Of course in the inane worldview of connie, J.J. and Asshole, Al Gore is a "Leftist." 5335. wonkers2 - 1/28/2001 3:58:41 PM Not everybody agrees that prescription drugs, social security, drug treatment, and headstart programs are wasteful pork. Those judgmenats are beyond Greenspan's job description. 5336. jexster - 1/28/2001 4:37:40 PM 5337. concerned - 1/28/2001 4:48:45 PM Re. 5335 - 5338. bbb - 1/28/2001 5:18:22 PM Optimism Expressed for Bush Agenda 5339. bbb - 1/28/2001 5:19:18 PM Is Wen Ho Lee still in jail? 5340. bbb - 1/28/2001 5:19:54 PM Pardon,not pardom. 5341. concerned - 1/28/2001 5:34:17 PM 5342. JudithAtHome - 1/28/2001 5:36:34 PM 5343. concerned - 1/28/2001 5:39:50 PM Re. 5342 - 5344. bbb - 1/28/2001 5:40:20 PM 5345. bbb - 1/28/2001 5:42:00 PM Did Clinton's dog Buddy go crazy and kept biting Clinton's leg? 5346. Cellar Door - 1/28/2001 5:42:41 PM "Is Wen Ho Lee still in jail? 5347. Cellar Door - 1/28/2001 5:43:50 PM Correction: 5348. concerned - 1/28/2001 5:45:12 PM So what cellar is saying is that the Stooge Reno Department of Injustice is not only corrupt but also incompetent. 5349. concerned - 1/28/2001 5:46:10 PM Weak attempt to pass the blame on to conservative journalist, btw, cellar. 5350. bbb - 1/28/2001 5:46:24 PM cdcdcdcd, 5351. concerned - 1/28/2001 5:48:17 PM I mean, if even Cellar assumes that Stooge Reno has to read Gerth to decide how to handle the Wen Ho Lee case, then we're infinitely better off with Ashcroft who has already proven he can think on his feet during the Senate Inquisition. Right? 5352. bbb - 1/28/2001 5:49:48 PM 5353. bbb - 1/28/2001 5:51:19 PM concerned, 5354. dusty - 1/28/2001 5:53:15 PM Message # 5250 Stumbo 5355. bbb - 1/28/2001 5:57:21 PM cd, 5356. bbb - 1/28/2001 6:02:28 PM 5357. dusty - 1/28/2001 6:04:42 PM Message # 5181 OhioSTOPAS 5358. Cellar Door - 1/28/2001 6:10:41 PM "Do you have more comments on the Wen Ho Lee case?" 5359. CalGal - 1/28/2001 6:11:21 PM Reagan did eventually buy the house. But the fact remains that the value of the house he was given without having to put any money down far exceeds the amount of gifts that the Clintons were given. In fact, if you figure that they just lived in it rent free for two years before they started paying for it, that would be more than the Clintons received. 5360. Cellar Door - 1/28/2001 6:13:34 PM But you don't understand, CG. Reagan is Our Lord and Savior's Gift to America -- The Land That HE Loves The Most. 5361. concerned - 1/28/2001 6:14:49 PM Re. 5329 - 5362. concerned - 1/28/2001 6:15:47 PM delete first 'without' in my last. 5363. dusty - 1/28/2001 6:17:19 PM Message # 5225 AceofSpades 5364. concerned - 1/28/2001 6:17:31 PM Btw, what happened to the 'Man' thread and why do I have this feeling that CalGal had something to do with its demise? Ah, freedom of speech, you have been raped and pillaged again. 5365. dusty - 1/28/2001 6:19:59 PM CalGal 5366. CalGal - 1/28/2001 6:22:03 PM But, none of it was ever possibly Federal property, and he did not take any of it without at all, let alone, without authorization. 5367. CalGal - 1/28/2001 6:23:26 PM Actually, no. The issue has been the size of the gift. They were all given it slightly before they left office. 5368. concerned - 1/28/2001 6:24:50 PM Re. 5329 - 5369. concerned - 1/28/2001 6:28:30 PM Appearance of Impropriety? Among the least of the Clowntoons' wrongdoing. 5370. concerned - 1/28/2001 6:31:34 PM We have the highly lucrative Clowntoon book deals, their 'legal defense fund', untold millions in illegal foreign campaign contributions, most of which was never returned, etc. Rotten to the core. 5371. Cellar Door - 1/28/2001 6:32:55 PM YEAH WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE PEOPLEKILLED AT STARBUCKS? WHAT ABOUT THAT ILLEGITIMATE BLACK BABY? WHAT ABOUT THE MURDER OF VINCENT FOSTER? WHAT ABOUT THE WHITE HOUSE TRAVEL OFFICE FIRINGS? WHAT ABOUT WHITEWATER AND CASTLE GRANDE? WHAT ABOUT THE DISAPPEARANCE OF JIMMY HOFFA? WHERE WAS CLINTON STANDING ON THE GRASSY KNOLL? 5372. Cellar Door - 1/28/2001 6:33:36 PM He cone, gues what? 5373. concerned - 1/28/2001 6:38:31 PM re. 5372 - 5374. Cellar Door - 1/28/2001 6:41:44 PM WOOOO. Look out, connie! 5375. Cellar Door - 1/28/2001 6:42:06 PM Just relax and enjoy it, connie. 5376. concerned - 1/28/2001 6:42:16 PM From the 'Arizona Republic': 5377. Cellar Door - 1/28/2001 6:46:05 PM Can't you just feel how hard Clinton's gettin' fer you connie? 5378. concerned - 1/28/2001 6:49:54 PM Just look at what these Clowntoon scumbags took from AF1. Wonder how much more of the $190,000 in loot will wind up on Ebay. Bet the bidding will be hot if any of those cigars is the genuine Monicanudo. 5379. jexster - 1/28/2001 7:26:13 PM BFD... 5380. jexster - 1/28/2001 7:31:58 PM Da Mayor is fond of regaling audiences with his I made off with enough loot from the Lincoln bedroom to cover about 3 years worth of Xmas giving 5381. concerned - 1/28/2001 7:34:22 PM This is about how I feel about the change of administrations 5382. jexster - 1/28/2001 7:50:29 PM Boy that piques the old curiousity! 5383. dusty - 1/28/2001 8:04:02 PM CalGal 5384. CalGal - 1/28/2001 8:46:34 PM Oh, please. No one with sense thinks that they are gifts to her in her role as Senator. They are gifts to her in her role as ex-First Lady. 5385. joezan - 1/28/2001 9:05:01 PM 5386. CalGal - 1/28/2001 9:08:11 PM Joe, 5387. Cellar Door - 1/28/2001 10:12:29 PM Clinton's got a gift for Connie: HIS COCK! UP YOUR ASS THEN DOWN YOUR THROAT! 5388. joezan - 1/28/2001 10:48:39 PM 5389. Cellar Door - 1/28/2001 10:54:35 PM concerned is as concerned does, joe. 5390. joezan - 1/28/2001 11:04:03 PM 5391. jexster - 1/29/2001 12:17:13 AM from the Post's in-depth on the November Crime: 5392. jexster - 1/29/2001 12:18:27 AM Cellar has always demonstrated fatherly love and affection for concerned....luvs him like a pet he do 5393. jexster - 1/29/2001 12:19:18 AM Make that 7 lawyers and biener... 5394. Jenerator - 1/29/2001 12:37:50 AM Jexster, 5395. jexster - 1/29/2001 12:39:38 AM Well ole George is at it again...trottin out another of his poorly developed notions - government aid for religious proseltyzing which he variously tries to mask as something less. As in the case of his wildly unpopular voucher scam, he has also started to backpeddal. 5396. Jenerator - 1/29/2001 12:43:08 AM How terrible!! Those Christian aid organizations will actually share their beliefs while administering aid AND still get funding. 5397. jexster - 1/29/2001 12:44:05 AM What Jen, no offense intended yet was I joking? 5398. Jenerator - 1/29/2001 12:46:43 AM Jexster, 5399. jexster - 1/29/2001 12:50:42 AM Yes indeed it is Jen and not at all necessary for a religious community that wishes to supplement its social ministry with public grant money. 5400. jexster - 1/29/2001 12:54:41 AM Well Jen, if it offends some then so be it. Frankly WRT the large and influential cabal of fundie pietists and assorted snake handling bible thumpers who dominate that party, I was not joking. 5401. jexster - 1/29/2001 12:57:10 AM We drive you from us, whoever you may be, unclean spirits, all 5402. jexster - 1/29/2001 1:18:05 AM To expand, many right wing protestant evangelical groups have created a fetish of materialism and called it a religion. 5403. jexster - 1/29/2001 1:20:44 AM Tragically they want the taxpayers to build more temples for the fundies to worship that which they hold nearest and dearest...themselves 5404. AceofSpades - 1/29/2001 1:25:04 AM 5405. jexster - 1/29/2001 1:30:03 AM Continuing with the theme Right -eous, Religious and Republican 5406. AceofSpades - 1/29/2001 1:30:42 AM 5407. jexster - 1/29/2001 1:40:23 AM Ace - so what? 5408. jexster - 1/29/2001 1:42:45 AM Duh..she wasn't a senator? 5409. AceofSpades - 1/29/2001 1:51:10 AM 5410. CalGal - 1/29/2001 2:01:12 AM When it comes to campaign finance, you claim that gifts of $100,000 to a POLITICAL PARTY (and not for personal use) are "corrupting." 5411. OhioSTOPAS - 1/29/2001 6:47:31 AM Message # 5404: Wrong on the down payment. The Clintons paid the 20% down payment from their own funds, obtained from assets in their blind trust. 5412. joezan - 1/29/2001 7:52:06 AM 5413. joezan - 1/29/2001 8:07:29 AM The Clinton Legacy? 5414. bubbaette - 1/29/2001 8:34:34 AM Like it or not half the people in this country voted for Bush. 5415. PelleNilsson - 1/29/2001 8:57:14 AM 5416. wonkers2 - 1/29/2001 9:01:25 AM Good point! Hardly a mandate for revolution. 5417. bubbaette - 1/29/2001 9:01:52 AM something like that. 5418. Dusty - 1/29/2001 9:34:23 AM wonkers2 5419. Dusty - 1/29/2001 9:45:28 AM CalGal 5420. jexster - 1/29/2001 10:47:58 AM Ashcroft Answers Continue Pattern of Lies and Deceit 5421. jexster - 1/29/2001 10:48:32 AM NO - CONTROLLING - LEGAL - AUTORITY... 5422. jexster - 1/29/2001 10:51:58 AM 5423. jexster - 1/29/2001 10:56:12 AM Disputed ballots held potential gains for Gore 5424. JJBiener - 1/29/2001 10:57:01 AM CalGal - Oh, please. No one with sense thinks that they are gifts to her in her role as Senator. They are gifts to her in her role as ex-First Lady. 5425. wonkers2 - 1/29/2001 10:57:51 AM Dusty, True enough. But Gore was advocating a more middle-of-the-road steady as she goes course. Did you see Cheney's statement on Meet the Press over the weekend that the Bush administration was not ruling out an effort to reverse Roe v. Wade? I wonder how the vote would have been affected if Bush had promised in his campaign to overturn Roe v. Wade? My guess is that his loss in the popular vote would have been even greater. 5426. wonkers2 - 1/29/2001 11:01:22 AM A Bush effort to reverse Roe v. Wade causes problems for moderates like Arlen Specter. He said yesterday it could cause him to vote against Ashcroft. 5427. wonkers2 - 1/29/2001 11:03:34 AM They should pay the President more and outlaw all gifts, before, during and after. I liked Senator Paul Douglas's policy of not accepting any gift worth more than $5. 5428. jexster - 1/29/2001 11:03:53 AM Until recently there was no particular contemporary relevance to the nicknames of some of ourless-favored presidents. Rutherford B. Hayes, victor in the hijacked electoral vote of 1876, was known as "Old 8-7" or "His Fraudulency." John Tyler, promoted from vice president when William Henry Harrison died of pneumonia after only one month in office, was referred to as "His Accidency." After the events of November and December 2000, however, a big question of the new year is whether the Democrats will have the guts to coin and circulate a comparable name for George W. Bush. 5429. Dusty - 1/29/2001 11:05:52 AM wonkers2 5430. Dusty - 1/29/2001 11:08:08 AM 5431. wonkers2 - 1/29/2001 11:11:41 AM Well, it seems to me that Gore's positions on tax reductions, Social Security privatization, defense, foreign policy, and social issues like abortion and gun control are less radical than Bush's. 5432. jexster - 1/29/2001 11:13:15 AM The possible electoral opportunity, however, is great. I believe that the cycle I predicted more than 30 years ago in The Emerging Republican Majority--and that was subsequently born out by five GOP victories in the six presidential elections from 1968 to 1988--basically ended in 1992, when George Bush the elder fell 16 percentage points below his 1988 showing, a drop analogous to Herbert Hoover's 19-point dive between 1928 and 1932. Bush's 37 percent of the total vote in 1992 was the weakest showing for an incumbent president seeking re-election since William Howard Taft's in 1912. 5433. jexster - 1/29/2001 11:13:33 AM 5434. jexster - 1/29/2001 11:15:26 AM So Dusty..stick your mandate where the sun don't shine 5435. jexster - 1/29/2001 11:23:36 AM The Bush administration is the first in many years to be elected in the face of a loose ideological majority--the more than 50 percent that supported Al Gore or Ralph Nader--that favors moving the nation's policies and politics in a direction largely different from what the nominally victorious regime represents. Even the George Wallace vote of 1968 and the Ross Perot vote of 1992 did not represent comparable polarities against the new administrations, since in many ways the policies favored by these third-party candidates did not cut against the ideological grain of the winning candidates (Richard Nixon in 1968, Bill Clinton in 1992). The striking Democratic gains in the Senate and the small gains in the House reinforce that 2000 was something of a Democratic year. Indeed, the 2000 election was arguably the first since 1964 to give a popular-vote majority to the center-left. 5436. wonkers2 - 1/29/2001 11:23:51 AM Well, gifts for a Presidential library may be one thing but belated wedding presents smell too much like a payoff for services rendered rather than appreciation by the citizenry for a job well done. It just strikes me as a little bit cheesy. I have made my last contribution to Clinton's legal defense fund. They're on their own now! 5437. CalGal - 1/29/2001 11:24:36 AM JJ, 5438. jexster - 1/29/2001 11:25:19 AM The case, unfortunately, is easier to state than to effectuate. 5439. Dusty - 1/29/2001 11:26:57 AM jexster 5440. jexster - 1/29/2001 11:28:23 AM I think its ludicrous to even whisper about Hilary's gifts when a candidate sits at 1600 PA who spent more money on his campaign than any US Pres candidate ever and corruptly stole the fuckin office 5441. Dusty - 1/29/2001 11:29:01 AM CalGal 5442. Jenerator - 1/29/2001 11:30:14 AM Message # 5400. 5443. jexster - 1/29/2001 11:30:22 AM Message # 5418 5444. rubberducky - 1/29/2001 11:30:25 AM 5445. Dusty - 1/29/2001 11:31:00 AM CalGal 5446. CalGal - 1/29/2001 11:32:23 AM By the way, I am not defending the Clintons, although I do love the way that their white trash behavior is fussing everyone. 5447. rubberducky - 1/29/2001 11:32:32 AM Jen & Jex 5448. Jenerator - 1/29/2001 11:32:56 AM Such persons will likely be found in evangelical religious theme parks clogging their arteries with overpriced hot dogs and feeling uncommonly righteous. 5449. CalGal - 1/29/2001 11:34:09 AM Dusty, 5450. Dusty - 1/29/2001 11:34:33 AM jexster 5451. Jenerator - 1/29/2001 11:35:18 AM rubberducky, 5452. CalGal - 1/29/2001 11:36:25 AM Does this mean you wouldn't mind if, for example, a few wealthy businesspeople decided to send GWB a few gifts to thank him for his fine job as Governor of Texas? 5453. Dusty - 1/29/2001 11:37:17 AM jexster 5454. CalGal - 1/29/2001 11:40:14 AM Your average white trash doesn't buy 5 million dollar homes. Something about their lifetstyle screams "benefits". 5455. wonkers2 - 1/29/2001 11:40:15 AM How about $25? 5456. jexster - 1/29/2001 11:40:57 AM Jen... 5457. Dusty - 1/29/2001 11:43:28 AM CalGal. 5458. jexster - 1/29/2001 11:43:34 AM I will join you Dusty! 5459. Dusty - 1/29/2001 11:45:50 AM CalGal 5460. Dusty - 1/29/2001 11:47:54 AM jexster 5461. CalGal - 1/29/2001 11:48:37 AM Dusty, 5462. wonkers2 - 1/29/2001 12:16:53 PM Dusty, Anybody know whether the Reagans are up-to-date on their rent? 5463. wonkers2 - 1/29/2001 12:21:31 PM Patrick Leahy is waxing eloquent on the Senate floor on the Ashcroft nomination. 5467. rubberducky - 1/29/2001 12:25:25 PM Jex: 5468. janjon - 1/29/2001 12:27:35 PM W's hanblers' proposals for a new "religious office" and the proposed ties between religious groups and Federal aid programs is incredible chutzpah. They have to know that this is more than just questionable in terms of separation of church/state. Can you imagine the more zealous of these so-called religions (I am thinking of wingnuts like the Pentecostals) being able to "administer" aid programs without also doing more than a bit of prosyletizing? 5469. janjon - 1/29/2001 12:29:47 PM Posts concerning the intents of religious groups in administering Federal aid programs are, unfortunately, apt for this thread, because church/state clearly is going to be a political issue. 5470. Dusty - 1/29/2001 12:30:15 PM wonkers2 5471. CalGal - 1/29/2001 12:30:27 PM Bush's "faith based" government agency is getting some pointed questioning. If the faith-based agencies are allowed to discriminate provided that they keep the funds separate, why can't international organizations get funds for family planning? 5472. rubberducky - 1/29/2001 12:33:10 PM Re: Message # 5469, janjon. 5473. CalGal - 1/29/2001 12:36:22 PM Man, it gets even better. Bush is proposing that everyone be allowed to deduct charitable donations--that people who don't itemize are "discriminated against". 5474. janjon - 1/29/2001 12:37:38 PM No big deal, but those posts do hit (at least in part) at the type of concerns that will be relevant re W's handlers' proposals. 5475. Raskolnikov - 1/29/2001 12:41:38 PM Cal: Sounds like it was just poorly worded. Part of the point of itemized deductions is that it creates an incentive for certain behaviors. If you can't deduct for charity, there is less of an incentive to donate. Allowing charitable donations to be deductible from pre-tax income (there is a precise name for this sort of deduction, but I forget what it is), would restore that incentive. Other expenses can have similar tax protection, such as health and child care. 5476. jexster - 1/29/2001 12:43:04 PM On the so-called overvote..from the Miami-Herald 5477. jexster - 1/29/2001 12:44:57 PM I agree Cal...the guy should try a bit of honesty...why does't he just SAY that he wants to give us poor Std Ded folk a bigger tax break via a charitable contrib add on? 5478. Raskolnikov - 1/29/2001 12:46:00 PM But his recent policy initiatives have been curious. I can think of several reasons for it (desire to moblize conservative support on Capitol Hill; desire to push his most controversial proposals through at a time when the opposition is most likely to cut you some slack, during your "honeymoon"; that his calls for unity were just lip service to get elected, etc.), but I think he risks a backlash. 5479. jexster - 1/29/2001 12:47:33 PM Can you imagine the more zealous of these so-called religions (I am thinking of wingnuts like the Pentecostals) being able to "administer" aid programs without also doing more than a bit of prosyletizing? 5480. CalGal - 1/29/2001 12:48:57 PM Part of the point of itemized deductions is that it creates an incentive for certain behaviors. 5481. jexster - 1/29/2001 12:49:02 PM Well hell Dusty! Let's cover ourselves with a bucket o bipartisan goo and GET DOWN! 5482. jexster - 1/29/2001 12:52:47 PM I read Weisberg's piece and come down on the side of those (I think he called us naive or similar) who believe that Bush is REALLY what he seems...a wingnut 5483. jexster - 1/29/2001 12:56:43 PM RD's right...the fundie question belongs in the God Thread...but the fact that the question has become a close one speaks volumes for the problem that the Religious Right and the GOP have created and which have become quite relevant just this morning! 5484. janjon - 1/29/2001 12:56:49 PM This idea of expanding charitable contribution deductions being floated currently also might be tied to the increasing scrutiny W's handlers' proposals to eliminate the estate tax will receive. One of the big (and real) concerns is that eliminating (or even materially curtailing) the estate tax will have a dramatic adverse impact on the level of charitable giving/foundation creation that goes on in this country currently as one way of estate planning. Presumably charitable giving will increase if standard deduction taxpayers get some added incentive to do so. Facile, but I doubt very much that the "plus" impact of this will equate to the "negative" impact of deincentivizing fatter cats to give as they now do. 5485. jexster - 1/29/2001 1:03:46 PM Kevin Phillips, My Favorite Republican... 5486. Dusty - 1/29/2001 1:04:36 PM Raskolnikov 5487. janjon - 1/29/2001 1:09:08 PM There was, in fact, an interesting article in today's New York Times regarding the growing concerns about the ramifications of W's handlers' proposal to eliminate the estate and gift tax. Here it is: 5488. jexster - 1/29/2001 1:10:30 PM Rask...i hope he continues just as he has been...NMD, vouchers, SS privitization, fundie funding, tax breaks for the filthy rich, a foreign policy from the 70's..the whole 9 yards.... 5489. jexster - 1/29/2001 1:11:18 PM Thanks for the RED lettering JJ! 5490. janjon - 1/29/2001 1:13:07 PM Well, that didn't work very well, did it. Here is another try: 5491. janjon - 1/29/2001 1:13:49 PM what are you talking about, Jexster? 5492. Raskolnikov - 1/29/2001 1:17:46 PM "I'd like to see a total 5493. jexster - 1/29/2001 1:19:10 PM Fine site FYI 5494. jexster - 1/29/2001 1:20:31 PM RD...please consider a thread link 5495. CalGal - 1/29/2001 1:21:26 PM I am quite unmoved by the notion of encouraging folks to give to charity. I'd rather give the people who can't afford to itemize tax deductions to invest in their children. I've never understood why Bush couldn't accomplish the equivalent of vouchers by giving people making less than $60K a year a tax credit if they send their kids to private schools. 5496. janjon - 1/29/2001 1:22:03 PM The American Prospect is a fine publication/site, and a link is very much in order. 5497. jexster - 1/29/2001 1:22:26 PM jj..somehow UR link turned my caption red...nice touch..will try to replicate! 5498. Raskolnikov - 1/29/2001 1:24:48 PM "I've never understood why Bush 5499. CalGal - 1/29/2001 1:27:28 PM Very expensive at the Federal level, unless you only do a credit well below the amount of private school tuition. 5500. Raskolnikov - 1/29/2001 1:34:42 PM "Oh, sure. All they are talking about for vouchers is 5501. rubberducky - 1/29/2001 1:38:14 PM The American Prospect has replaced The Iowa Electronic Markets in the link list 5502. CalGal - 1/29/2001 1:48:41 PM Rask, 5503. Raskolnikov - 1/29/2001 1:56:36 PM "Investment in kids, income protection, and retirement all go well 5504. bbb - 1/29/2001 2:04:41 PM Diethylene glycol butyl ether 5505. bbb - 1/29/2001 2:08:03 PM Leahy, Clinton To Oppose Ashcroft 5506. bbb - 1/29/2001 2:09:15 PM Hillary's Giants suck. 5507. CalGal - 1/29/2001 2:16:39 PM Rask, 5508. Raskolnikov - 1/29/2001 2:35:12 PM "We were talking about priority, not cost, as I understand it. Your last two questions seemed to make it clear that you were asking on that as well. You are now saying well, it's cheap and so who cares? " 5509. Raskolnikov - 1/29/2001 2:37:54 PM "That's a different issue, although I doubt it is that cheap. " 5510. Raskolnikov - 1/29/2001 2:39:52 PM Just to be clear, I don't see it as a major priority. But I have no objection to small priorities being acted upon, so long as they don't take up much time. That said, I have debated this subject much more than the issue is worth. 5511. bbb - 1/29/2001 2:45:10 PM 5512. Jenerator - 1/29/2001 3:28:16 PM Jexster, 5513. bbb - 1/29/2001 3:39:13 PM What WAS jester's position on P&R? 5514. bbb - 1/29/2001 4:43:13 PM Microsoft Wants Breakup Stopped 5515. bbb - 1/29/2001 4:44:03 PM Elaine Chao was confirmed.......... 5516. bbb - 1/29/2001 4:52:54 PM Texans Surprised by Pricy Capital 5517. Raskolnikov - 1/29/2001 5:10:11 PM "Microsoft Wants Breakup Stopped " 5518. Raskolnikov - 1/29/2001 5:13:23 PM (that is a comment on the inane headline, not the post) 5519. bubbaette - 1/29/2001 5:16:35 PM bbb -- D.C. is a phenominally expensive place to live. When I left in 89, I and 3 other women were paying $1,200 per month for a tiny 4 bdrm 2 bath cape. The salaries for political aids there are low -- much lower than most people would think. When I moved to Richmond I thought I'd died and gone to heaven -- I could afford a 2 bdrm apartment AND a car payment. 5520. Raskolnikov - 1/29/2001 5:18:50 PM We would have killed for a 4 bedroom for $1200. When I lived in DC we had to live in a shoebox in the back of an alley. It cost $2000 per month, as we couldn't afford the lid for the box, which cost another $500. 5521. CalGal - 1/29/2001 5:23:00 PM I think SF is still the most expensive--right now, my rent for a 2BR 2BA apartment in Santa Clara (hardly the most expensive place going for rentals) is $2100/month, and that's probably 300+ below market. 5522. janjon - 1/29/2001 5:27:46 PM Studio apts. in "good" but not great addresses in Manhattan, in "good" -meaning post WWII, usually 60s or 70s - buildings (which means the ubiquitous parquet floors over concrete (for fire retarding), which also means that sound carrys everywhere) run about $1500 a month. One bedrooms would be at least $2200. Two bedrooms, one and a half bath, $2850. And up, of course. 5523. Raskolnikov - 1/29/2001 5:29:18 PM Damn, that is over twice my monthly mortgage payment on a 3BR house with 2000 finished sq ft. 5524. CalGal - 1/29/2001 5:30:57 PM That's basically true for SF as well. 5525. CalGal - 1/29/2001 5:33:16 PM Rask, 5526. janjon - 1/29/2001 5:34:03 PM Actually, the rental market in NYC apparently has peaked, and we are told that some of the old deals are coming back - such as the landlord paying brokerage fees, adding on a couple or more of free months (instead of lowering the basic rent - which they hate to do for psychological and next tenant purposes). Nothing like it was about 12 years ago when rentals (and coops) were in the toilet. 5527. CalGal - 1/29/2001 5:36:21 PM Jan, 5528. janjon - 1/29/2001 5:43:06 PM I suspect that the four areas in the country where the normal supply and demand factors don't quite work are Manhattan, D.C., San Francisco and Silicon Valley, in that there is always pressure from the demand side. Too many young thingies want to move in. This used to taper off in Manhattan at least, when people had that first kid ready for school and they had to face both the extra space AND tuition issues. Not true for the last 12 years or so. We'll see what happens now that the bloom seemingly is off the bud. (Ace - don't even comment.) I just don't see things going back to the way they were the last flat period. Mentality has changed and many people simply will not give up the City. 5529. janjon - 1/29/2001 5:48:29 PM Meanwhile - back on topic. The fun and games indeed continues. So, we now have a Faith Based Office in the Executive branch (I wonder if they will have the guts to actually put it in the West Wing or whether it will end up at the EOB.) It can't really do a lot without some enabling legislation, so we'll see how this one plays out. 5530. thoughtful - 1/29/2001 5:51:28 PM I dunno what you guys are complaining about....when my mother in law left NYC (East 70s) in 1994, she was paying all of $400 per month for a two bedroom apartment, very large living room, eat-in kitchen....of course she had been living there since the 1930s. 5531. thoughtful - 1/29/2001 5:54:03 PM Just for kicks, I'd like to start an atheists outreach program to help with community problems and see if they'd have any trouble getting funding from this new organization...Wiccan's should try the same thing and see how far they get...voodoo practitioners too! Maybe suddenly some will change their minds about the risks of mixing religion and gov't funding, eh? 5532. CalGal - 1/29/2001 5:55:06 PM Thoughtful, 5533. janjon - 1/29/2001 5:57:21 PM and if she were there today she would probably be paying all of $418.75 a month. Even rent control tenants feel a bit of additional pain from time to time. 5534. janjon - 1/29/2001 6:02:33 PM oh yes, there will be lots of ways to test how far outside the norm (which in this case means being comfortable with, say, pentacostals) a group can be and get blessings/money for its secular activities. 5535. CalGal - 1/29/2001 6:06:56 PM Bush Pick for Faith-Based Office Sparks Debate 5536. JudithAtHome - 1/29/2001 6:12:14 PM 5537. janjon - 1/29/2001 6:12:50 PM I don't think that establishing the office per se needs any Congressional approval (hence, W's handlers' use of an Executive Order), and if in fact its role is to help organizations apply for Federal grants it is difficult to see where additional Congressional approval would be needed (presumably, the agencies receiving the given applications would be saying yes or no based on their existing standards and in view of church/state constitutional principles.) Perhaps the further approvals are for the funding of the office itself. 5538. janjon - 1/29/2001 6:14:11 PM Judith - it is just too soon. Education is too amorphous of a target. This Faith Based Office will certainly be a line in the sand for many. 5539. CalGal - 1/29/2001 6:15:31 PM The Post said it had to be approved by congress. 5540. JudithAtHome - 1/29/2001 6:18:06 PM 5541. janjon - 1/29/2001 6:19:17 PM And, why fight what will be a losing battle. In view of the fact that you've already got several Dem. senators saying they will vote for Ashcroft (and as far as I know none of the likely GOP defectors - like Chaffee or Spector - having given any sign that they will), it becomes instead a game of making Ashcroft go on record with his pieties and reassurances in as many areas as possible and then be prepared to throw them back in his face when he deviates. 5542. CalGal - 1/29/2001 6:20:02 PM Change "nominated" to "confirmed", obviously. 5543. JudithAtHome - 1/29/2001 6:22:35 PM 5544. janjon - 1/29/2001 6:25:05 PM I still think it is more calculated pandering than anything else. Even the Exec. Order to ban funding of int'l orgs. if they use other funds for abortions etc. is not much more than reinstating Poppy and Reagan policies. But, it certainly cheers the righties. Certainly helps convince them that W really is on their side. Then, when the going gets tough (ie, he folds/compromises on more controversial policies), he can still point to the evidence that he really would be on the side of the so-called Angels, given the opportunity and were it not for those evil Dems. 5545. CalGal - 1/29/2001 6:27:25 PM Jan, 5546. CalGal - 1/29/2001 6:28:02 PM What will really get interesting is if he refuses to fund a religious organization that both feeds the poor and assists women in getting abortions. 5547. JudithAtHome - 1/29/2001 6:30:29 PM 5548. robertjayb - 1/29/2001 6:40:12 PM . 5549. dusty - 1/29/2001 6:42:48 PM JudithAtHome 5550. dusty - 1/29/2001 6:44:36 PM JudithAtHome 5551. Cellar Door - 1/29/2001 6:56:04 PM 5552. dusty - 1/29/2001 7:42:39 PM Cellar Door 5553. robertjayb - 1/29/2001 8:00:24 PM . 5554. concerned - 1/29/2001 8:10:52 PM From the Dallas Morning News: 5555. concerned - 1/29/2001 8:12:27 PM Cal: 5556. jexster - 1/29/2001 8:30:17 PM GRAND OLD POOPSTAIN On the March! 5557. jexster - 1/29/2001 8:32:55 PM As Bush's Web site boasts, the office "in the Executive Office of the President . . . will identify and remove federal regulations that bar faith-based organizationsfrom participating in federal programs, and encourage the 50 states to establish their own offices of Faith-Based Action." 5558. jexster - 1/29/2001 8:39:59 PM Recall that the welfare reform-era provision "Charitable Choice" (sponsored by then-Senator Ashcroft) already permits faith-based organizations to get federal funding to provide social services. So what federal regulations will the office axe? According to Marvin Olasky -- the evangelical Christian father of the term "compassionate conservatism" and a Bush mentor --the offending regulations are those that deter groups receiving federal funds from evangelizing to recipients. Olasky criticizes the government for denying funds to organizations that "offer spiritual as well as actual food." And he praises President Bush for establishing such an office, even though he acknowledges it will be extremely controversia,... 5559. jexster - 1/29/2001 9:02:06 PM The press has picked up this letter from the designated Chief of God Ops to BOTUS 5560. concerned - 1/29/2001 9:03:34 PM Those self-proclaimed Men of God, Bore and Lieberman fully endorse Bush's position, right? 5561. jexster - 1/29/2001 9:03:59 PM Thanks for the link RD! The American Prospect is superb... 5562. jexster - 1/29/2001 9:08:24 PM 5563. concerned - 1/29/2001 9:10:25 PM Re. 5551 - 5564. jexster - 1/29/2001 9:13:15 PM restoration is one of the purest forms of reaction, however camouflaged by witty courtiers or compassionate-conservative flackery. 5565. jexster - 1/29/2001 9:32:36 PM Yo TD! You say the Guardian doesn't grab ya? How 'bout The Orlando Sentinel 5566. jexster - 1/29/2001 9:32:51 PM The Sentinel has now mined that possible mother lode, excluding only optical counties that used "second chance" technology (machines that instantly reject invalid ballots after voters turn them in, giving the voters a chance to redo them). The results more or less bear out the implications of the "Lake County Effect"--Gore gained, not thousands of net votes, but 366 net votes out of a total of 1,700 valid votes recovered. 5567. jexster - 1/29/2001 9:35:58 PM Yours in in serious, long-term democratic distress, 5568. jexster - 1/29/2001 9:40:13 PM the simple fact is that George W. Bush is the first president[sic] to be chosen by the Supreme Court--by a single vote.... Kevin Phillips 5569. robertjayb - 1/29/2001 9:42:39 PM . 5570. robertjayb - 1/29/2001 9:44:58 PM . 5571. robertjayb - 1/29/2001 9:45:46 PM . 5572. jexster - 1/29/2001 9:46:35 PM Poppy's Pissant Progeny and The Grand Old Poopstain aka Party of God 5573. jexster - 1/29/2001 9:48:05 PM That's OK Robert, Ace is dyslexic... 5574. wonkers2 - 1/29/2001 10:13:09 PM Did Kevin Phillips have an ephiphany or a brain transplant or what? Didn't he used to be a rightie? 5575. jexster - 1/29/2001 10:27:34 PM yup he wrote The Emerging Republican Majority and worked for Tricky Dicky 5576. jexster - 1/29/2001 10:28:59 PM ATTENTION POLICY WONKS! 5577. jexster - 1/29/2001 10:29:29 PM 5578. jexster - 1/29/2001 10:45:42 PM Professor Alexander Keyssar, author of The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States: 5579. jexster - 1/29/2001 11:18:35 PM WARNING REPOST! 5580. joezan - 1/30/2001 12:02:19 AM 5581. CalGal - 1/30/2001 12:07:28 AM 5582. Stumbo - 1/30/2001 12:30:41 AM O tempora, o mores: 5583. joezan - 1/30/2001 12:48:35 AM 5584. Stumbo - 1/30/2001 12:57:10 AM The rabbit-slayer. 5585. Brad Ryerson - 1/30/2001 1:34:42 AM I won't sit still for this! 5586. Stumbo - 1/30/2001 2:51:54 AM The top 3 anagrams for "Brad Ryerson" 5587. Rosetta Stone - 1/30/2001 4:18:46 AM Wonderful to see that Bush's unique sweetness is winning over his Democratic enemies in Congress. 5588. OhioSTOPAS - 1/30/2001 6:11:10 AM There's a good article by Eric Boehlert in Salon (www.salon.com) refuting much bullshit that's been written and spoken about the $190,000 in gifts given to the Clintons. 5589. Wombat - 1/30/2001 8:11:20 AM If faith-based organizations pride themselves in doing a good job without government intervention and assistance, why do they suddenly turn around and say they will do a better job with government aid? Have they become a bunch of liberal "socialists?" 5590. Rosetta Stone - 1/30/2001 8:35:15 AM 5591. glendajean - 1/30/2001 9:37:20 AM Is Andrea Mitchell part of a family deal to ingratiate themselves with the new Administration. Two stories, one from Slate and one from Salon on how pack journalism, and particularly Andrea Mitchell, trashed the Clintons without getting the facts straight. 5592. jexster - 1/30/2001 9:41:15 AM Ashcroft Pressure Builds - Mr. Leahy..Mr. Leahy "NO!" 5593. jexster - 1/30/2001 9:42:45 AM Rosie's just laid in a case of Crisco Oil I hear... 5594. lisajolie - 1/30/2001 9:48:53 AM Groups such as the Salvation Army, Catholic Social Services, Bethany Christian Sevices, etc, which have already proven themselves 5595. jexster - 1/30/2001 9:51:04 AM not only are the gifts bullshit but so is the trashing story....a Karl Rove Kreation dollars to donuts....I mean has anyone seen any evidence other than the Moronic Minions? 5596. jexster - 1/30/2001 9:54:22 AM Groups such as the Salvation Army, Catholic Social Services, 5597. jexster - 1/30/2001 9:57:11 AM The Salvation Army in SF WAS cut off from SF City funding...cut off because it refused to comply with the City's domestic partner ordinance....I suppose the God Squad will take that one on.... 5598. joezan - 1/30/2001 9:59:27 AM 5599. jexster - 1/30/2001 10:02:48 AM Gifgate - A Load of BushSHit 5600. jexster - 1/30/2001 10:04:49 AM Geee Joey I dunno how I did, wasn't even tryin but thanks.... 5601. joezan - 1/30/2001 10:06:22 AM 5602. Cellar Door - 1/30/2001 10:08:57 AM Catholics are only interested in PWA's when they're dying. 5603. lisajolie - 1/30/2001 10:09:22 AM What happens when the Church of Scientology wants funding to help people become "enlightened" or whatever it is that they do? How about Wiccans? 5604. lisajolie - 1/30/2001 10:12:04 AM How long do you think it will be before a Tom DeLay or a Trent Lott creates a religious patronage PAC? 5605. JudithAtHome - 1/30/2001 10:29:06 AM 5606. JudithAtHome - 1/30/2001 10:29:47 AM 5607. JudithAtHome - 1/30/2001 10:34:11 AM 5608. janjon - 1/30/2001 10:39:20 AM From today's newspaper summary from Slate: "USAT bottom fronts the cold cuts congressional Democrats are 5609. JudithAtHome - 1/30/2001 10:41:56 AM 5610. joezan - 1/30/2001 10:44:37 AM 5611. janjon - 1/30/2001 10:46:05 AM A friend of mine in turn is close to a person who has had the opportunity to get to know Ashcroft well enough to have concluded how his mind works when it comes to "troublesome" issues. 5612. joezan - 1/30/2001 10:49:48 AM 5613. JudithAtHome - 1/30/2001 10:50:06 AM 5614. joezan - 1/30/2001 10:54:33 AM 5615. JudithAtHome - 1/30/2001 10:56:15 AM 5616. janjon - 1/30/2001 10:56:29 AM joezan - the messenger may slay you, but it doesn't mean that the message is bad. 5617. JudithAtHome - 1/30/2001 10:57:08 AM 5618. lisajolie - 1/30/2001 10:59:38 AM Joezan: 5619. janjon - 1/30/2001 10:59:49 AM Much of the Hillary-hounding will abate in time. Not for those who have real hard-ons about Bill and Hill, however - like the Wall Street Journal. They are already embarked on their campaign to try to get her defeated six years from now. Fat chance. 5620. joezan - 1/30/2001 11:12:39 AM 5621. CalGal - 1/30/2001 11:15:48 AM GJ, 5622. joezan - 1/30/2001 11:21:39 AM 5623. janjon - 1/30/2001 11:22:34 AM No question that the so-called vandalism and so-called Air Force One thefts were aggrandized. 5624. janjon - 1/30/2001 11:25:01 AM joezan - it isn't crap. It is more than plausible, and I believe it. And, my source(s) in fact are impeccable and not really people with axes to grind. 5625. OhioSTOPAS - 1/30/2001 11:25:29 AM I oppose government sponsorship of religion (as does the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment), but I think President Bush's initiative to let religious institutions use public money to enhance their charitable activities is worth pursuing. 5626. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 11:25:32 AM I think the faith-based funding issue is a very interesting one. I see no reason why religious organizations will be less effective than secular ones in the delivery of social services, and the more organizations competing for federal funds, the better. 5627. JudithAtHome - 1/30/2001 11:27:56 AM 5628. joezan - 1/30/2001 11:28:46 AM 5629. JudithAtHome - 1/30/2001 11:32:28 AM 5630. janjon - 1/30/2001 11:35:20 AM Joezan - well, he got the party line down pat, that is for sure. 5631. joezan - 1/30/2001 11:36:20 AM 5632. lisajolie - 1/30/2001 11:37:32 AM Freedom of Religion as opposed to Freedom from Religion is just a slogan and does nothing to alleviate my concerns. The issue is that I, not to mention the Constitution, don't believe that using my tax monies to advance some religion is proper. 5633. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 11:38:27 AM One other concern does occur to me. I think government should get return for its money, and I see little point in funding activities that will happen even without government assistance. Now, I know it is possible to put up a "firewall" between a religious sponsor and associated secular charitable activities, but as I understand it, when this is done the organization is *already* able to receive federal aid. (Correct me if I am wrong here - I don't know much about non-profit charitable financing). 5634. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 11:44:14 AM "I think that you're also ignoring the very real possibility that religions will be used as political patronage pawns. It isn't too farfetched to imagine politicians promoting some religious group over an another in competition for funding." 5635. lisajolie - 1/30/2001 11:44:51 AM Very well said, Raskolnikov. 5636. joezan - 1/30/2001 11:45:11 AM 5637. lisajolie - 1/30/2001 11:49:25 AM But the logic is just that there is no reason they will be *less* likely to succeed, as many religious organizations have a long history of charitable work. 5638. lisajolie - 1/30/2001 11:51:30 AM Joezan: 5639. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 11:55:02 AM "Harold Stassen has a long history of running for President. I wouldn't say that he has been particularly effective at it." 5640. joezan - 1/30/2001 11:59:29 AM 5641. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 12:01:28 PM "...plus, none of the secular providers has ever had the onus of scrutiny of the degree to which Faith-based organizations will/have subjected. " 5642. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 12:03:10 PM "As far as comparative efficiency between secular and faith-based 5643. joezan - 1/30/2001 12:05:57 PM 5644. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 12:12:12 PM It isn't politicians who primarily make those decisions anyway. It is usually mid to low-level bureaucrats, who are occasionally *pressured* by politicians, but I think this is more the exception than the rule. 5645. Wombat - 1/30/2001 12:15:59 PM I am puzzled by those on the Republican side of things who have been touting the effectiveness of faith-based charities in large part because they are not federally funded (more efficient, etc.) now advocating that which they would criticize when applied by secular authorities. 5646. JudithAtHome - 1/30/2001 12:21:04 PM 5647. lisajolie - 1/30/2001 12:33:27 PM In light of Joezan's concern over Medicare fraud, I would add that the religious community has not been immune to scandal, waste, and fraud with regard to its charitable activities. When one of these faith-based groups gets caught with its hand in the till, what are the chances that proponents of the ill-advised initiative cry 'religious persecution?' 5648. joezan - 1/30/2001 12:41:48 PM 5649. joezan - 1/30/2001 12:42:08 PM 5650. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 12:48:27 PM Joe: You believe the one instance you describe proves that the efficiency advantages of religious organizations over secular ones is "well-established"? 5651. joezan - 1/30/2001 12:51:55 PM 5652. bbb - 1/30/2001 12:53:09 PM Senator Hillary admitted yesterday that her earlier statements on the pardon issue were untrue. 5653. bbb - 1/30/2001 12:54:38 PM Washington Post runs ANOTHER Editorial to condemn Clinton's pardon acts today. 5654. bbb - 1/30/2001 12:58:52 PM Recession Fears Rising 5655. PelleNilsson - 1/30/2001 1:00:21 PM 5656. theDiva - 1/30/2001 1:01:37 PM Joe 5657. joezan - 1/30/2001 1:02:01 PM 5658. joezan - 1/30/2001 1:03:21 PM 5659. Ronski - 1/30/2001 1:03:52 PM Re: Message # 5645 5660. theDiva - 1/30/2001 1:04:12 PM hm. Okay, just curious. 5661. joezan - 1/30/2001 1:07:23 PM 5662. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 1:08:07 PM Joe:"I worked for a state-run treatment center for 10 years. The per-diem costs alone were over twice what they are at faith-based or even private facilities because of gov't bloat" 5663. bbb - 1/30/2001 1:09:50 PM Bush Choices Headed for Approval 5664. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 1:10:51 PM Ronski:"I share the same puzzlement. A more consistent approach would be to lower government spending in order to stimulate more private 5665. Wombat - 1/30/2001 1:12:50 PM Ronski is being true to his political philosophy. 5666. Ronski - 1/30/2001 1:14:32 PM The notion that faith-based charities are more efficient than secular charities has been around GOP and religious right circles for some time. The idea behind it is that if you appeal to a person's sense of morality or nascent belief in some higher power you get better results than if you leave that spiritual element out of it. There is perhaps some truth to it. I don't know. 5667. joezan - 1/30/2001 1:14:44 PM 5668. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 1:16:27 PM Well, if he wants to argue that the Feds should bow out on principle, *that* is a position consistent with Libertarian philosophy. But to claim that the recipients of social services will be helped more if the government gets completely out of the game is contrary to logic and empirical fact. 5669. joezan - 1/30/2001 1:19:26 PM 5670. joezan - 1/30/2001 1:20:51 PM 5671. bbb - 1/30/2001 1:21:15 PM http://www2.uclick.com/client/wpc/po/ 5672. Francis Urquhart - 1/30/2001 1:21:20 PM Ronski 5673. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 1:22:23 PM "The notion that faith-based charities are more efficient than secular 5674. bbb - 1/30/2001 1:22:29 PM 5675. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 1:24:15 PM Joe:"No - and unfortunately, I am having difficulty searching for stats - any 5676. Francis Urquhart - 1/30/2001 1:26:28 PM Rask 5677. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 1:27:01 PM "But what secular (non-gov't) organizations are there that are large 5678. Ronski - 1/30/2001 1:27:46 PM Wombat, 5679. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 1:28:45 PM Frank: You are now with Joe in completely missing my point. I am not disagreeing that non-profits can be more efficient than government. I am simply questioning Joe's initial statement that religious non-profits are more efficient than secular ones, particularly when you consider that many religiously affiliated non-profits are legally secular. 5680. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 1:29:30 PM "The faith-based organization simply has no choice but to do without 5681. Francis Urquhart - 1/30/2001 1:29:32 PM There can be no discussion of faith-based versus governmental. The comparison would be ludicrous. And faith-based versus secular is irrelevant, as both must, by necessity, be pretty lean and mean. But, by and large, secular organizations correspond more-so to corporate structure, which often translates into added fat. 5682. Francis Urquhart - 1/30/2001 1:30:40 PM Rask 5683. Wombat - 1/30/2001 1:32:02 PM Urquhart: 5684. ranheim - 1/30/2001 1:32:12 PM I think one should also keep in mind William F. Buckley's position of 30 years ago : "If the Government created a Dept. of Sand, there would be no sand in W. Texas within a year!" 5685. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 1:33:13 PM "There can be no discussion of faith-based versus governmental. The 5686. Francis Urquhart - 1/30/2001 1:33:18 PM Wombat 5687. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 1:33:36 PM Sorry, the last wasn't fair, but it was too much fun to resist. 5688. Francis Urquhart - 1/30/2001 1:34:23 PM Rask 5689. Francis Urquhart - 1/30/2001 1:35:00 PM Rask 5690. Wombat - 1/30/2001 1:37:57 PM Unless the government is going to hand out money at street corners to anyone who asks, these charities will have to learn how to apply for grants, and to administer them so that they will conform to Federal guidelines. Dealing with that will make the organizations less lean and less mean. 5691. bbb - 1/30/2001 1:38:32 PM Calif. Exhausts Emergency Fund 5692. Francis Urquhart - 1/30/2001 1:40:21 PM Wombat 5693. Wombat - 1/30/2001 1:40:38 PM bbb: 5694. lisajolie - 1/30/2001 1:41:08 PM I think Jim and Tammy Bakker kind of shoot down the theory that faith-based services are "lean and mean." 5695. Ronski - 1/30/2001 1:41:41 PM They are warning of natural gas running out for as long as a week at a time in California next month. 5696. bbb - 1/30/2001 1:42:45 PM Does Jesse Jackson live in public housing? 5697. Francis Urquhart - 1/30/2001 1:43:09 PM lisa 5698. JudithAtHome - 1/30/2001 1:43:10 PM 5699. Ronski - 1/30/2001 1:44:21 PM To wit, the Commentary. 5700. Francis Urquhart - 1/30/2001 1:44:22 PM Juditha 5701. bbb - 1/30/2001 1:44:46 PM GWB's hands-off approach on California's energy problem is a correct one for now. 5702. JudithAtHome - 1/30/2001 1:45:03 PM 5703. JudithAtHome - 1/30/2001 1:46:33 PM 5704. Wombat - 1/30/2001 1:47:46 PM Urquhart: 5705. Francis Urquhart - 1/30/2001 1:48:47 PM Juditha 5706. bbb - 1/30/2001 1:49:09 PM JAH, 5707. CalGal - 1/30/2001 1:50:50 PM I can't see it passing, but if it does it will be amusing to see the pigs run to the trough. The courts will not be pleased with the extra load. 5708. Francis Urquhart - 1/30/2001 1:51:03 PM Wombat 5709. bbb - 1/30/2001 1:52:08 PM Official Fears Quake Toll Will Soar 5710. Francis Urquhart - 1/30/2001 1:52:12 PM I can't see it not passing. A portion of the 1996 welfare reform bill allows religious organizations to participate in federal anti-poverty programs. 5711. Francis Urquhart - 1/30/2001 1:53:41 PM On that note. 5712. CalGal - 1/30/2001 1:56:03 PM Francis, 5713. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 1:57:55 PM Judith: Non-profits have a lot more going for them than government agencies in certain areas. They are much more subject to economic pressures, and if they find an efficiency improvement they can take advantage of it, whereas government agencies will often be penalized with a budget reduction. Non-profits also follow a more competitive model, lacking the government's ability to tax. All these things tend to push toward greater efficiency in the direct provision of social services. 5714. Wombat - 1/30/2001 1:58:50 PM Urquhart: 5715. CalGal - 1/30/2001 1:59:17 PM Is it only faith based or non-profit? And has anyone read up on the guy who'll be heading up the office? 5716. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 2:00:33 PM I am still waiting for the details. What will government oversight be? How will we avoid just having federal funds displace charitable funds? Will these religious organizations have to serve everyone, or can they refuse to treat Jews, gays or Moonies? Is this this thing Constitutional anyway? 5717. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 2:06:30 PM "I would suggest, both historically and philosophically, that US 5718. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 2:09:10 PM "Is it only faith based or non-profit?" 5719. CalGal - 1/30/2001 2:13:54 PM I believe Robertson has come out against it, or is expressing strong doubts. 5720. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 2:15:27 PM ACLU concerns. 5721. CalGal - 1/30/2001 2:17:54 PM Rask, 5722. bbb - 1/30/2001 2:18:27 PM Senators Hillary and Schumer are eating crows for their Superbowl bets against Baltimore Ravens. 5723. Wombat - 1/30/2001 2:20:03 PM Unlike bbb's analogy, the Ravens won fair and square. 5724. OhioSTOPAS - 1/30/2001 2:22:22 PM A more apt analogy: At the end of the game the Ravens look up at the scoreboard and it says, "Giants 7, Ravens 6". 5725. Wombat - 1/30/2001 2:22:49 PM I say this as a Giant fan. 5726. OhioSTOPAS - 1/30/2001 2:23:01 PM And the referees are wearing robes. 5727. jexster - 1/30/2001 2:28:09 PM By now the Bastard Imbecile's moronic political strategy should be crystal clear....watch for stinkbombs in purty packaging... 5728. jexster - 1/30/2001 2:28:49 PM I hear Rove took a few courses from Una-the-bomber 5729. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 2:28:51 PM "I haven't read back to see if someone has suggested it, but it seems to me that the religious organization, in order to qualify, would have to spend the government funds in addition to their budgeted amount for 5730. bbb - 1/30/2001 2:29:18 PM Farmers Cook Up Beef in Protest 5731. bbb - 1/30/2001 2:31:28 PM jester, 5732. JudithAtHome - 1/30/2001 2:32:07 PM 5733. theDiva - 1/30/2001 2:32:53 PM Generally with federal grants you are required to submit a budget with the grant application, and to report to the grantor on a quarterly, let's say, basis as to what you are doing with funds. The reporting requirements can be performance measures or narrative or both. 5734. bbb - 1/30/2001 2:33:17 PM Gale Norton's confirmation is a done deal. 5735. bbb - 1/30/2001 2:36:17 PM JAH, 5736. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 2:38:17 PM "Well, that is why I don't see it passing--or being declared 5737. CalGal - 1/30/2001 2:38:26 PM Rask, 5738. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 2:38:35 PM That was one of the reasons why she quit. 5739. jexster - 1/30/2001 2:39:43 PM Rask...concrete examples 5740. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 2:40:44 PM "Generally with federal grants you are required to submit a budget with the grant application, and to report to the grantor on a quarterly, let's say, basis as to what you are doing with funds. " 5741. jexster - 1/30/2001 2:41:05 PM bbb...we'll see how strong the Bastard Imbecile's team really is! 5742. CalGal - 1/30/2001 2:41:07 PM This sort of displacement is quite common, by the way. 5743. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 2:41:44 PM Well, he talked about leveraging community organizations and churches, in the abstract. But no one knew what the fuck he really meant. 5744. bbb - 1/30/2001 2:42:20 PM The Ashcroft hearing is ON again. 5745. jexster - 1/30/2001 2:43:15 PM Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of SF is the single largest social service contractor of the City and County of SF without Marvin Olasky's God Squad 5746. bbb - 1/30/2001 2:44:26 PM Ashcroft was elected as Chairman of National Attorney General ? 5747. theDiva - 1/30/2001 2:44:56 PM Rask 5748. rubberducky - 1/30/2001 2:46:16 PM Re: Message # 5735, bbb. 5749. jexster - 1/30/2001 2:49:11 PM A Sign of the Times... 5750. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 2:50:54 PM Jexter: I think you misunderstand me. Consider this hypothetical example: 5751. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 2:52:35 PM Cal: lottery programs are notorious for that. "Dedicating" the funds to education is a great sales tool, but then general revenues for those programs are quietly axed. 5752. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 2:54:47 PM "It's been my experience that the federal funds are used to supplement 5753. jexster - 1/30/2001 2:55:44 PM Could be missing something ...the hypo makes a distinction without a diff... 5754. jexster - 1/30/2001 2:57:12 PM RD-How 'bout the Crawford Cow Corral bought bad feed in '98...GWB is suffering from Mad Cow Disease which accounts for his semi-literate moments? 5755. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 2:59:45 PM "Could be missing something ...the hypo makes a distinction without a 5756. robertjayb - 1/30/2001 3:00:51 PM . 5757. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 3:01:58 PM Jex: you need to keep the social perspective in mind. The question is, what is the best use of the 100k in Federal funds? To give it to a church that will use it to displace other charitable funds that can now go to buy a bigger steeple? Or to an organization where funds are not displaced? 5758. Dusty - 1/30/2001 3:04:06 PM Money is fungible. 5759. bbb - 1/30/2001 3:04:56 PM Ashcroft Heads to Committee Vote 5760. Dusty - 1/30/2001 3:05:37 PM Raskolnikov 5761. jexster - 1/30/2001 3:05:43 PM The usual case is that the services provided are a mix of internally generated and taxpayer funds...so yes, whether the service is offered may well depend on whether and to what extent the FBO decides to continue its funding or no....for in my parish's case, we might have decided we needed the parish hall for catechism class not seniors...and in fact, when the City reduced funding because the elderly were dying off the decision to close was made because we didn't want to make up the diff 5762. bbb - 1/30/2001 3:07:00 PM 5756, 5763. Rosetta Stone - 1/30/2001 3:10:18 PM Former senator, Bob Kerrey is going to the Democratic nominee in 2004. 5764. jexster - 1/30/2001 3:11:16 PM To give it to a church that will use it to displace other charitable funds that can now go to buy a bigger steeple? 5765. bbb - 1/30/2001 3:11:30 PM O'Neill Confident on Tax Cut Plan 5766. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 3:11:42 PM "Hence the argument for giving it back to the people." 5767. bbb - 1/30/2001 3:13:19 PM Will Bob Keerey pick up Algore for the VP spot? 5768. Ronski - 1/30/2001 3:14:17 PM jexster, 5769. Ronski - 1/30/2001 3:16:36 PM It is Wellstone who will lose badly to Bush. Kerrey will wait until 2008. 5770. jexster - 1/30/2001 3:17:48 PM Refresh please...has anyone come up with a good way of removing the 5771. bbb - 1/30/2001 3:17:52 PM Should Senator Hillary recuse herself from the Ashcroft vote since Ashcroft will investigate some of the Clinton/Hillary scandals? 5772. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 3:18:34 PM "That can happen under existing regs and really is not at issue in the 5774. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 3:19:24 PM Wellstone in 2004??? 5775. JudithAtHome - 1/30/2001 3:20:19 PM 5776. Dusty - 1/30/2001 3:20:30 PM bbb 5777. JudithAtHome - 1/30/2001 3:20:53 PM 5778. jexster - 1/30/2001 3:21:04 PM you Moron 5779. Dusty - 1/30/2001 3:21:43 PM 5780. bbb - 1/30/2001 3:22:06 PM 5776, 5781. Dusty - 1/30/2001 3:22:08 PM LOL Jexter 5782. jexster - 1/30/2001 3:22:15 PM bbb...great work! 5783. JudithAtHome - 1/30/2001 3:23:58 PM 5784. jexster - 1/30/2001 3:23:58 PM Feingold, Edwards, Bayh, Lieberman, Gore...they'll be linin up to take a bite out of BOTUS... 5785. rubberducky - 1/30/2001 3:24:17 PM 5786. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 3:24:17 PM Wellstone is almost too liberal for Minnesota. I think he would crash and burn in any other state primary except Massacusetts. If he even wants to run. 5787. bbb - 1/30/2001 3:24:43 PM Betcha didn't know that Clinton got his thru on voice vote 5788. JudithAtHome - 1/30/2001 3:26:30 PM 5789. bbb - 1/30/2001 3:26:48 PM 5784, 5790. bbb - 1/30/2001 3:31:39 PM Norton Confirmed to Interior Post 5791. bbb - 1/30/2001 3:32:33 PM jester, 5792. Ronski - 1/30/2001 3:32:45 PM I suspect the Democrats will nominate a left-liberal in 2004, given my equal suspicion that Bush will seem unbeatable, scaring away the moderates. 5793. jexster - 1/30/2001 3:33:06 PM January 25th, 2001 -- Understanding Ashcroft Hey, now that I've been reminded of John Ashcroft's rationale for opposing James Hormel's ambassadorial nomination, I think I understand what his problem was with Judge Ronnie White. He didn't oppose White because he was black, he opposed him because he promoted the black lifestyle. 5794. rubberducky - 1/30/2001 3:34:14 PM sigh 5795. Ronski - 1/30/2001 3:34:22 PM Does anyone care that Andrew Cuomo has gone public with the fact that he seeks to avenge his father's loss to Gov. Pataki? 5796. jexster - 1/30/2001 3:37:16 PM and Bruce Babbit? 5797. janjon - 1/30/2001 3:38:05 PM Hey, if W's motivation was revenge, why not Andrew's? I think either he or McCall will have a good chance. Pataki's turn to explain some disappointing economic trends. 5798. Dusty - 1/30/2001 3:41:16 PM Ronski 5799. jonesatlaw - 1/30/2001 3:42:19 PM I think that there are a number of risks involved in using faith based orgaizations (hereinafter "FBO's") for outlets for federal funding and supplementing federal and state programs. There is no question that churches do a great deal of social work that the government has either botched or abandoned in the last 30 years and that such efforts are to be commended and encouraged. The risk of harming either our secular system of government or our flourishing FBO's is great. Many FBO's offer services without shoving their faith down the throats of those that they serve, but a good number do exactly that. My wife worked as a psych-social worker for a homeless project in a midwestern city. The local mission was operated by fundamentalists who participated in a government grant program to work with the mentally ill homeless. There was to be no preaching required, but they did it anyway, even when the person was schizophrenic with religious persecution delusions. 5800. Dusty - 1/30/2001 3:42:34 PM So who didn't vote in the Norton vote? I trust Hillary has finally shown up? 5801. jexster - 1/30/2001 3:44:01 PM A. Cuomo is tres formidable...boy's got talent and Pataki got problems 5802. janjon - 1/30/2001 3:44:24 PM Andrew also has a distinct resemblence to his father. He also speaks very very well. (Perhaps not as well as his father, but who could.) 5803. jexster - 1/30/2001 3:45:40 PM or as Kevin Phillips so convincingly demonstrated, the Poopstain is kaput 5804. jexster - 1/30/2001 3:49:39 PM Divided Senate For Ashcroft - Many Object Not to Crisco Oil but to the Crisco Oil Lifestyle 5805. jexster - 1/30/2001 4:04:34 PM From Silcon Valley - Bush Hypocrisy Index Off the Charts [San Jose Mercury News] 5806. bubbaette - 1/30/2001 4:16:13 PM Why should Hillary recuse herself from anything having to do with the entertainment industry? 5807. bbb - 1/30/2001 4:16:29 PM Mario Cuomo lost a tremendous amounts of credibility in the Florida recount fiasco. Cuomo even openly advocated the faithless EC votes after Gore's concession. And Cuomo was also crazy enough to believe his crazy idea might just work. 5808. janjon - 1/30/2001 4:18:19 PM There are so many slippery slopes when it comes to assessing these "faith based" charities, one hardly knows where to begin. The name alone - "faith" - is almost a stopper. It implies a bias towards charities that espouse one or another religion. Even if you can pass that hurdle (philosophically, let alone constitutionally), for many of these groups you will quickly get into very murky waters about the spiritual aspects being "voluntary", or a "secondary" objective, etc. 5809. bbb - 1/30/2001 4:19:44 PM Whitman, Norton Confirmed by Senate 5810. janjon - 1/30/2001 4:20:01 PM Even though your premise is laughable, Mario Cuomo is at a point in his life where he wouldn't give a damn about what you and your ilk think about his credibility. 5811. Dusty - 1/30/2001 4:20:16 PM bubbaette 5812. bbb - 1/30/2001 4:22:24 PM Ashcroft Heads to Committee Vote 5813. janjon - 1/30/2001 4:23:00 PM "The votes left all of Bush's Cabinet seats but one -- that of attorney general -- filled just 10 days after his inauguration. 5814. bbb - 1/30/2001 4:32:20 PM http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2069-2001Jan30.html 5815. janjon - 1/30/2001 4:34:16 PM P.M. of Canada. 5816. bbb - 1/30/2001 4:36:06 PM http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2132-2001Jan30.html 5817. JJBiener - 1/30/2001 4:43:57 PM The debate about faith based organizations is interesting but it misses the point. The reason for allowing FBOs to inject religion into their activities is that programs that incorporate a religious element have a higher success rate than those programs that are strictly secular. As long as the government funds non-religious as well as religious programs and no one is forced into a religious program, I don't see any constitutional issue. 5818. bbb - 1/30/2001 4:45:49 PM 5819. bbb - 1/30/2001 4:47:41 PM The press is still whacking Bill Clinton over his last-minute pardons and has finally elicited a comment from his successor. "President Bush said yesterday he wouldn't have pardoned Marc Rich and is 'troubled' that predecessor Bill Clinton did," reports the New York Post. 5820. Ronski - 1/30/2001 4:51:30 PM JJ, 5821. bbb - 1/30/2001 4:52:02 PM http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/01/30/power.woes.01/index.html 5822. bbb - 1/30/2001 4:54:23 PM A newly released audit shows one of California's largest electricity utilities reaped $4.8 billion in dividends in the years leading up to the state's energy crisis, prompting critics to say the company "took the money and ran." 5823. bbb - 1/30/2001 5:02:51 PM 5824. bbb - 1/30/2001 5:04:25 PM The contrast, of course, is with Bill Clinton. He was notoriously late, and politicians, foreign officials, top government officials, audiences, even reporters (but probably not donors) were constantly feeling dissed. 5825. JudithAtHome - 1/30/2001 5:06:26 PM 5826. bbb - 1/30/2001 5:08:24 PM Mr. Bush "has presided over one of the most orderly and politically nimble transitions in at least 20 years," gushed The New York Times. 5827. bbb - 1/30/2001 5:12:17 PM Mr. Bush held White House meetings about his education proposals with top Democrats, who then said nice things to the cameras about the President and his plans. He toured the Education Department, an agency congressional Republicans have persistently tried to exterminate, with Roderick Paige, his black secretary of education. He lunched with D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams and went to services at a black Washington church. He generated nice stories in the papers. 5828. jonesatlaw - 1/30/2001 5:19:44 PM The problem comes with government regulation of the expenditure of the funds. American citizens are entitled to due process in the operation of government benefits programs. So what happens when Joe SixPack is kicked out of rehab for refusing to accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior and higher power? Maybe he turns Muslim in treatment and doesn't buy their theology. Can they kick him out? 5829. JJBiener - 1/30/2001 5:23:56 PM Ronski -Rask asked earlier for examples of faith-based charities working better than secular charities. Can you provide some? 5830. jonesatlaw - 1/30/2001 5:26:18 PM If the President Select wants to really help FBO's, and keep the constitutional problems to a minimum, he should ask congress to enact a nice little tax credit for donations to FBO's doing social programs with a reasonable ceiling. That way Jane Q. Public gets to send her dollars where she wants in accordance with her beliefs, the government doesn't look over anyone's shoulders, and the funding gets there. If the program doesn't cut it with donors, it dies. If it is successful, the money will follow. 5831. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 5:28:22 PM "The debate about faith based organizations is interesting but it misses the point. The reason for allowing FBOs to inject religion into their activities is that programs that incorporate a religious element have a higher success rate than those programs that are strictly secular. " 5832. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 5:31:27 PM Oops. I see you already told Ronski you were going to look for some. 5833. jexster - 1/30/2001 5:35:10 PM You can deliver a very provocative gift basket to your Senator tomorrow with a personal message of support from you. Each basket contains a chocolate bar, a high energy bar, throat lozenges, gourmet coffee, a can of Jolt Cola, pocket size Tylenols, beef sticks, Lifesavers, and a stress ball. The cost is $26.95... 5834. CalGal - 1/30/2001 5:38:24 PM I have seen statistics on drug treatment programs that showed those with a religious component have a lower relapse rate than those with out. 5835. JJBiener - 1/30/2001 5:40:07 PM Cal - I wonder if they are counting AA as a religious program. 5836. jexster - 1/30/2001 5:43:07 PM The reason for allowing FBOs to inject religion into their 5837. janjon - 1/30/2001 5:45:37 PM Jexster, as usual, puts it where it is, if a bit colorfully. 5838. jexster - 1/30/2001 5:50:10 PM Check this out while UR at it... 5839. JJBiener - 1/30/2001 5:53:54 PM Here is part of an article on faith-based prison programs. 5840. jexster - 1/30/2001 5:57:07 PM Its high time someone stood up for Satanists and their work.... 5841. jexster - 1/30/2001 5:57:51 PM selectivity bias....Olasky and Bush have floated those turds around the toilet for years.. 5842. jexster - 1/30/2001 5:58:11 PM correction...selection bias... 5843. jexster - 1/30/2001 5:58:15 PM correction...selection bias... 5844. janjon - 1/30/2001 5:59:33 PM A guick glance at the Family Research Council's home page would indicate that it doesn't exactly go at this topic with objectivity in mind. 5845. jexster - 1/30/2001 5:59:50 PM Junk science questions aside, I don't want one fuckin dime of my money going to Falwell, Olasky, the Houston House of Love, to the Mormons,to Jehovah's Witnesses, or the God-damned Pentecostals thank you very much 5846. jexster - 1/30/2001 6:00:29 PM Boy am I glad Gore won! 5847. janjon - 1/30/2001 6:00:57 PM Amen!!! 5848. jexster - 1/30/2001 6:01:27 PM Its a pork payoff for the religious wrong....piss on Biener's pathetic naivete 5849. janjon - 1/30/2001 6:01:54 PM The Amen was to 5845. 5850. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 6:03:22 PM Well, that does imply that the state should maybe be supportive of religious organizations in prisons (although cause and effect is fuzzy very fuzzy here, is the religion causing lower recidivism or are the most remorseful inmates most likely to be religious) - but I don't know what it says about a comparison between the effectiveness of religious and secular non-profit organizations. 5851. CalGal - 1/30/2001 6:04:50 PM Hell, who is to say that the inmates aren't faking religion because it gets them paroled sooner? Which would go along with good behavior while in jail. The recividism rates aren't all that remarkable. 5852. janjon - 1/30/2001 6:05:20 PM rask - it says beans. 5853. CalGal - 1/30/2001 6:06:44 PM Keep in mind too that even if faith based organizations were more effective (although I believe AA is still the most effective addiction program), they are also free, and generally only used by the motivated. Fee-based programs have a group that is often forced to seek treatment, which means they are less likely to be successful. 5854. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 6:07:54 PM This is a repeated issue with everyone who has broached the subject: 5855. CalGal - 1/30/2001 6:09:43 PM Exactly. Secular non-profit does everything religion does with none of the constitutional ickiness. 5856. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2001 6:11:25 PM "Rask, or anyone: I asked about this earlier and may have missed a 5857. janjon - 1/30/2001 6:12:47 PM I seem to recall that he made some general comments along the line of the old Thousand Lights crap in his acceptance speech, but I certainly don't recall anything as specific as this new initiative being addressed during the campaign. 5858. CalGal - 1/30/2001 6:13:15 PM Because I just can't figure out if his legal analysts have thought this through. It seems to me they might have at least thought of the constitution. 5859. DaveM - 1/30/2001 6:16:18 PM I've never said anything like that. 5860. janjon - 1/30/2001 6:16:42 PM My theory is that he's building up an impressive number of "Look My Heart Was In The Right Place and Gosh Darn I Tried" brownie points for use later on when the RR isn't terribly happy with what Congress actually enacts. 5861. CalGal - 1/30/2001 6:17:27 PM Ha. Nice timing. I was thinking of Kevin Kline Dave, though. 5862. DaveM - 1/30/2001 6:17:35 PM Like Nixon's guaranteed minimum income. 5863. DaveM - 1/30/2001 6:18:03 PM I probably should have given a smiley there. (g) 5864. CalGal - 1/30/2001 6:18:13 PM In other words, why worry too much about pesky little things like constitutionality if you don't really think the proposal will fly. 5865. robertjayb - 1/30/2001 6:18:42 PM . 5866. DaveM - 1/30/2001 6:20:09 PM For what it's worth, I'm not exactly comfortable with "secular" non-profits performing public works either. If it's really for the public good, let public institutions do it, god damn it. 5867. CalGal - 1/30/2001 6:20:12 PM Did anyone watch the Spin Room last night with their pronunciation of the new acronym? 5868. janjon - 1/30/2001 6:22:58 PM Oh, there probably would be a way to structure this so that constitutionality would not be a material concern, although I doubt that all of the strictures and on-going reviews, etc. are what the boys have in mind. 5869. robertjayb - 1/30/2001 6:23:24 PM . 5870. janjon - 1/30/2001 6:24:51 PM Charlton Heston was up there, of course, not too far away from W during the swearing in. 5871. CalGal - 1/30/2001 6:29:44 PM If it's really for the public good, let public institutions do it, god damn it. 5872. CalGal - 1/30/2001 6:31:26 PM Oh, there probably would be a way to structure this so that constitutionality would not be a material concern, although I doubt that all of the strictures and on-going reviews, etc. are what the boys have in mind. 5873. JudithAtHome - 1/30/2001 6:56:45 PM 5874. JJBiener - 1/30/2001 7:14:49 PM All nine Republicans on the committee voted for Ashcroft, a former senator from Missouri, but only one Democrat, Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, voted in his favor. 5875. Cellar Door - 1/30/2001 8:32:02 PM What viscious smear campaign? 5876. Cellar Door - 1/30/2001 8:33:23 PM Tell me, J.J. do you think James Hormel tried to "recruit" Ashcroft as the latter has claimed? 5877. JudithAtHome - 1/30/2001 8:38:46 PM 5878. joezan - 1/30/2001 9:07:12 PM 5879. CalGal - 1/30/2001 9:33:17 PM Joe, 5880. joezan - 1/30/2001 9:45:37 PM 5881. joezan - 1/30/2001 9:56:06 PM 5882. JadeGold1 - 1/30/2001 10:10:54 PM What atrocities have the Repugs committed today? 5883. JadeGold1 - 1/30/2001 10:14:44 PM One wonders if the "higher power" which Curious George must refer to in his 12-step program is Dick Cheney. 5884. joezan - 1/30/2001 10:14:45 PM 5885. jexster - 1/30/2001 10:17:07 PM "I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well."--Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2001 5886. JadeGold1 - 1/30/2001 10:17:38 PM JZ: 5887. jexster - 1/30/2001 10:19:16 PM Any one know whether the Black Muslims have put in a grant request for prison ministry to the God Squad? 5888. jexster - 1/30/2001 10:19:58 PM Yes Jade but what KIND of simian? 5889. Cellar Door - 1/30/2001 10:22:02 PM Can the Church of Satan get in on this Faith-Based scam? 5890. joezan - 1/30/2001 10:33:41 PM 5891. concerned - 1/30/2001 10:46:17 PM 5892. jonesatlaw - 1/30/2001 11:37:49 PM If Bush, Lieberman or any other politicians want to stump for FBO's, more power to them. If they want to hand over my tax money to the Church, (yes, including my own) they need to stop and have another brain session. I do not want to have state or federal bureaucrats telling any FBO's how to do their good deeds. This is going to have to happen folks, or the scam artists will be out in force. People are not going to be happy when some less favored religious group (which will be labeled a "cult") starts spending government money on something which is divinely inspired to them and aborrant to the mainstream. Many of the same folks now so firmly on the bandwagon will have a proverbial cow when they see that the first amendment will force the government to give evenhanded treatment to "heathen" religions. The possibilities for scamming the government under the President Per Curiam's proposal boggle the mind. 5893. jonesatlaw - 1/30/2001 11:45:02 PM Joezan- the folks in AA don't worry me, neither do Catholic Social Services, Lutheran Social Services, the Salvation Army nor dozens of existing FBO's who operate social work type agencies and programs. I have never heard of any of the above shoving religion down anyone's throat as a condition of helping them, to their everlasting credit. 5894. joezan - 1/31/2001 12:21:27 AM 5895. Stumbo - 1/31/2001 12:24:48 AM Hillary in 2004: what do you think? 5896. jonesatlaw - 1/31/2001 12:29:01 AM Hillary in 2004, hell no! 5897. joezan - 1/31/2001 12:30:50 AM HaHa! 5898. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 9:24:25 AM Speaking of nepotism and entitlement, has anyone seen who Curious George has appointed to be Commissioner of the FCC? Why, it's Michael Powell. Be sure to check out his website. It is a hoot. 5899. Indiana Jones - 1/31/2001 9:55:45 AM Real clever nicknames, Jade. You've demonstrated that's your forte many times. 5900. bubbaette - 1/31/2001 10:07:11 AM good god, Jade -- that page took five minutes to download. 5901. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 10:14:47 AM IJ: 5902. Indiana Jones - 1/31/2001 10:18:18 AM > the Goo-goo pies. 5903. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 10:24:24 AM IJ: 5904. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 10:26:49 AM OTOH, perhaps Curious George's mate is not content to fill just Bab's shoes. 5905. Raskolnikov - 1/31/2001 10:43:23 AM "Speaking of nepotism and entitlement, has anyone seen who Curious 5906. janjon - 1/31/2001 10:48:21 AM Powell is highly regarded on both sides of the aisle and gets unusually high marks from a lot of the people who deal with the FCC. He has the ability to say no and still make the target feel not too badly about it. 5907. JudithAtHome - 1/31/2001 10:48:38 AM 5908. JudithAtHome - 1/31/2001 10:49:52 AM 5910. Cellar Door - 1/31/2001 10:50:35 AM "He has no heart -- that man." 5911. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 10:50:53 AM Nice segue, Rask. 5912. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/31/2001 10:54:17 AM 5913. jexster - 1/31/2001 11:19:25 AM GOP Infighting Now Underway in Bastard Administration 5914. jexster - 1/31/2001 11:24:21 AM Let the Infighting Begin! How Cheney's Moving to Castrate Powell 5915. janjon - 1/31/2001 11:24:54 AM I have said many times that it will be the Ass't Secs., the Ass't Directors etc. where W's handlers will do the real harm. 5916. jexster - 1/31/2001 11:24:56 AM Damn it I do so HATE to say I told you so.... 5917. jexster - 1/31/2001 11:26:07 AM Well JJ I dunno whether you said it first, but as I do so hate to say I told you so... the honor is yours my friend 5918. janjon - 1/31/2001 11:43:18 AM jexster - a small (and not serious) request. Try not to call me JJ. It gives me a bit of heartburn. 5919. Cellar Door - 1/31/2001 11:43:37 AM Major Breakthrough on the Gay Marriage front 5921. Cellar Door - 1/31/2001 11:45:38 AM 5922. JJBiener - 1/31/2001 11:48:49 AM janjon - Try not to call me JJ. It gives me a bit of heartburn. 5924. janjon - 1/31/2001 11:55:42 AM Yeah, but I have a right to be upset. You should be flattered. 5925. rubberducky - 1/31/2001 11:56:30 AM 5920 & 5909 & 5923 were deleted due to lack of posting or repeating 5926. jexster - 1/31/2001 11:59:48 AM Loser Lawyers from Starr Wars Now Advising the Bastard Imbecile! 5927. jexster - 1/31/2001 12:06:00 PM 5928. jexster - 1/31/2001 12:09:06 PM The 2d and 3d level infighting is 3-dimensional...first the forlorn moderates and pragmatists in their quixotic fight with the wignuts, on the more important level its Warbucks people v. others...this last aspect is equally if not more important and the whole mess portends a disaster for Da Moron 5929. joezan - 1/31/2001 12:10:28 PM 5930. jexster - 1/31/2001 12:11:07 PM Bush God Squad Could Mean Mega Bucks For Scientologists 5931. JJBiener - 1/31/2001 12:13:10 PM joezan - what makes you think they're any more reliable now? 5932. joezan - 1/31/2001 12:14:40 PM 5933. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 12:17:39 PM JZ: 5934. janjon - 1/31/2001 12:19:29 PM It is well known that Barry Diller is gay. I have no idea whether his intended, Diane von Furstenberg, is or not. 5935. Cellar Door - 1/31/2001 12:21:38 PM Yep. 5936. jexster - 1/31/2001 12:27:46 PM Senate Democrats Key to Removing Stain from BVD's of Body Politic 5937. Cellar Door - 1/31/2001 12:28:49 PM Barry Diller's devotion to the closet is legendary. He gets very cross if you bring up his boytoys -- like former "Advocate" editor Jeff Yarbrough. 5938. concerned - 1/31/2001 12:29:16 PM And these Kalifornia Socialist State Mandated Electric Cars are going to run on exactly what.....? 5939. joezan - 1/31/2001 12:30:27 PM 5940. Cellar Door - 1/31/2001 12:31:49 PM One of my most enjoyable nights in Hollywood was at the cast and crew screening of "Inside Monkey Zetterland." It was at the big room at MGM (now Columbia, but to me it will always be MGM), and Steve Antin was doing his best to preside over the event, despite Sandra Bernhard's best efforts to hog the spotlight. That woman will take over everything within four city blocks of her if given half a chance. 5941. Ronski - 1/31/2001 12:33:59 PM Cellar, 5942. jexster - 1/31/2001 12:34:58 PM CD wrote the book on don't ask, don't tell - literally 5943. Cellar Door - 1/31/2001 12:38:20 PM Ronski, you knew Camille? SPILL! 5944. jexster - 1/31/2001 12:45:27 PM 5945. jexster - 1/31/2001 12:47:34 PM TD .. Dontcha know? 5946. jexster - 1/31/2001 12:48:43 PM But don't you worrry your leetle head...the Moron has put the nail the in coffin of the CA GOP...poopstain gone! 5947. Ronski - 1/31/2001 12:49:21 PM Re: Message # 5855 5948. jexster - 1/31/2001 12:49:32 PM they'll have to fly in mourners when goo-goo brained Ron goes to his final reward 5949. Ronski - 1/31/2001 12:59:13 PM Cellar, 5950. Ronski - 1/31/2001 1:11:00 PM Oh, and speaking of gay marriage, my partner and I have decided to go ahead and get civil-unioned in Vermont before the local GOP tries to prevent out-of-staters from getting the benefit. I mean, caring as little as I do for government approval of my personal life I wasn't all that keen on doing this, but the VT GOP has stimulated a backlash in me. 5951. CalGal - 1/31/2001 1:12:25 PM That's so cool. We should all chip in and get you a gift. 5952. jexster - 1/31/2001 1:15:17 PM To understand the enthusiasm of the administration for all things dirty, I believe, you need to see it as something that goes beyond simple calculations of cost and benefit. What it's really about is political momentum — about eliminating Mr. Bush's legitimacy gap by winning a series of striking victories. In effect, his advisers hope that by repeatedly rolling over the moderates they can make people forget that the other guy actually got more votes. The environment, in particular, becomes a target precisely because the other side wants to protect it. Think of it as an attempt to create the illusion of a mandate using smog and mirrors. 5953. jexster - 1/31/2001 1:15:52 PM Congrats RONSKI! 5954. jexster - 1/31/2001 1:16:26 PM count me in for a contribution Cal 5955. Cellar Door - 1/31/2001 1:20:35 PM GO FOR IT, RONSKI!!! 5956. Ronski - 1/31/2001 1:20:51 PM You are all much too kind. 5957. Cellar Door - 1/31/2001 1:22:06 PM Maybe you could get the ceremony peformed on skis. 5958. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 1:22:46 PM Another Reason For Faith-Based Organizations 5959. theDiva - 1/31/2001 1:28:26 PM hot diggity, Ronski! Congratulations. 5960. jexster - 1/31/2001 1:32:51 PM Krugman, as ususal, is right on the ball. I would only add what I've already said. What he calls "smog & mirrors", I have labeled Unabomber tactics.... 5961. PelleNilsson - 1/31/2001 1:33:04 PM 5962. jexster - 1/31/2001 1:33:30 PM We need to start a Ronski Batchelor Party Thread 5963. OhioSTOPAS - 1/31/2001 1:36:28 PM Reinstate "The Man Thread" for the bachelor party! 5964. jexster - 1/31/2001 1:37:51 PM Great minds think alike 5965. jexster - 1/31/2001 1:38:30 PM OOOO a common demoninator :) 5966. jexster - 1/31/2001 1:38:51 PM denominator ~ demonimator 5967. Ronski - 1/31/2001 1:39:59 PM Are "The Man Thread" les mots justes, in this case? 5968. glendajean - 1/31/2001 1:43:24 PM Congrats, Ronski! I hope it is a wonderful experience. 5969. Ronski - 1/31/2001 1:47:32 PM Thank you. Thank you. We just have to figure out how to avoid mud season and black fly season, and how, if my partner's Methodist minister relative blesses the ceremony, how to keep his denomination hierarchy from finding out. But these are minor obstacles. 5970. Ronski - 1/31/2001 1:48:16 PM (Unitarians aren't fussy that way, you know.) 5971. JudithAtHome - 1/31/2001 3:48:37 PM 5972. jexster - 1/31/2001 3:50:34 PM Enuf of Ronski's wedded bliss! 5973. jexster - 1/31/2001 3:51:20 PM While Ronski fiddles, there's a Bastard Imbecile on the loose! 5974. jexster - 1/31/2001 3:54:17 PM Sen. Thomas Daschle (news - bio - voting record), D-S.D., told reporters he hoped 41 of his party's 50 senators would oppose Ashcroft to signal the Bush administration that Democrats have the clout to block future nominations. Forty-one votes would sustain a filibuster and block a vote,although Democrats said Tuesday they would not use the delaying tactic against Ashcroft.... 5975. jexster - 1/31/2001 3:57:35 PM The NYT editorial page, its main economics columnist Paul Krugman, and the LAT editorial page all come down hard on President [sic]George W. Bush's nascent energy policy reaction to the California electricity crunch. Regarding the Bush idea ofdeveloping oil and gas resources in a federally protected region of Alaska wilderness, the NYT editorial says that less than one percent of California's energy comes from oil, that there are other available lands for natural gas exploration in Alaska, which heretofore the oil and gas companies have not shown any interest in, and that the wilderness refuge's amounts of oil are "relatively trivial." And the LAT editorializes that drilling in the Alaskan wilderness "would not generate one kilowatt of electricity for California. It wouldn't even produce any oil for an estimated ten years." Krugman takes note of a quote that previously ran in the LAT from an energy company official who described the idea--also suggested by Bush and others in his administration--that tight environmental regulations contributed to California's current problems, as "absolutely false." 5976. jexster - 1/31/2001 3:57:57 PM Unabomber tactics...pure BushShit 5977. rubberducky - 1/31/2001 3:58:34 PM sigh 5978. PsychProf - 1/31/2001 3:59:07 PM 5979. JudithAtHome - 1/31/2001 4:03:00 PM 5980. jexster - 1/31/2001 4:06:22 PM Artic Oil - A Sham and A Scam - The Los Angeles Times 5981. jexster - 1/31/2001 4:08:16 PM Been to South- EAST Texas - Houston and Fort Bend counties specifically...just returned from a week visits matter of fact.. been to San Antone once and to Dallas once (other than DFW plane switches) 5982. Cellar Door - 1/31/2001 4:09:32 PM 5983. JudithAtHome - 1/31/2001 4:13:50 PM 5984. jexster - 1/31/2001 4:16:45 PM Arctic Oil a Sham Answer 5985. jexster - 1/31/2001 4:21:30 PM I know JAH..there's you, Robert, my brother Louis, his wife Elise, my darlin nephews Alex and Sean, and on every other Thursday, my dad....residents all of Tom DeLay's district.... 5986. jexster - 1/31/2001 4:25:18 PM His client - my brother's not Bush's 5987. JJBiener - 1/31/2001 4:40:03 PM It's funny how all of the problems in Texas are entirely Bush's fault. One would think he ran that state like a dictatorship. I suppose the Democraticly-held state legislature bears no responsibility for any of the laws it passed which contributed to the current situation. 5988. concerned - 1/31/2001 5:53:32 PM Drilling for arctic oil is a great idea! Only a fraction of 1% of the total acreage of the Alaskan Wildlife habitat would ever be disturbed by such activities, after all, and it would substantially reduce our dependence on foreign oil reserves. Whatever the fuck doing so would have with California's completely screwed up internal energy policies is beyond rational consideration, btw. 5989. concerned - 1/31/2001 5:58:33 PM Democrats love to spout moronic garbage in the conscious hope that they might confuse Republicans into a state approaching that of the noisier Lefties. 5990. jexster - 1/31/2001 7:15:45 PM January 10, 2001 5991. jexster - 1/31/2001 7:16:10 PM Men and women of all backgrounds concerned about civil rights, human rights, women's rights, consumer rights, gun law enforcement and the environment have contacted me in huge numbers asking me to oppose this nomination. Senator Ashcroft's statements, speeches, and his extensive record as state Attorney General, Governor and Senator, place him far outside the mainstream of our nation and indicate that he is not the kind of person to set aside his deeply held personal views as a matter of principle. 5992. jexster - 1/31/2001 7:20:03 PM One example of my concerns about Senator Ashcroft involves his opposition to judicial nominations. President Clinton nominated Margaret Morrow for the Central District Court of California. She 5993. jexster - 1/31/2001 7:21:40 PM Of course you know about Judge Ronnie White. As documented in the press, Judge White's record on death penalty cases was actually more stringent than some of Senator Ashcroft's own judicial selections, and yet he engineered a humiliating defeat for Judge White. 5994. jexster - 1/31/2001 7:26:02 PM Usually I can understand concerned's pap but the 2 above are absolutely unintelligible... 5995. jexster - 1/31/2001 7:40:42 PM One of the few remaining sane Republicans, Richard Riordan, Mayor of Los Angeles: 5996. jexster - 1/31/2001 7:42:39 PM LAT Commentary - Richard Riordan 5997. jexster - 1/31/2001 8:21:03 PM WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican Party committees raised more than $500 million to finance their successful effort to keep control of Congress and win back the White House, Federal Election Commission (news - web sites) filings show. 5998. concerned - 1/31/2001 8:30:22 PM Money talks, Leftists walk - right back to their tofu encrusted, dark, cold little hidey holes, jexster. 5999. Cellar Door - 1/31/2001 8:31:40 PM I've never eaten Tofu in my life! 6000. concerned - 1/31/2001 8:37:18 PM 6K? Bwahahaha! 6001. arkymalarky - 1/31/2001 8:57:46 PM Congratulations to Ronski! 6002. joezan - 1/31/2001 9:39:32 PM 6003. concerned - 1/31/2001 9:40:30 PM And San Francisco is the crack of that ass. 6004. joezan - 1/31/2001 9:42:05 PM 6005. CalGal - 1/31/2001 9:45:14 PM Joe, 6006. CalGal - 1/31/2001 9:45:39 PM Correction: it is a supply problem. It's not caused by high demand. In fact, demand in California is lower this year than last year. 6007. JudithAtHome - 1/31/2001 9:46:16 PM 6008. CalGal - 1/31/2001 9:48:52 PM And, Joe, just to make it easier: here is where it starts. Not that I really think you'll read it, but it is ever my goal to keep folks from spouting misinformation. 6009. joezan - 1/31/2001 9:49:04 PM 6010. JadeGold1 - 1/31/2001 9:52:53 PM My, my. 6011. JudithAtHome - 1/31/2001 9:53:57 PM 6012. CalGal - 1/31/2001 9:58:22 PM 6013. joezan - 1/31/2001 10:20:13 PM 6014. concerned - 1/31/2001 10:31:10 PM It has nothing to do with our reluctance to build new power plants. In fact, Californians always paid a high price for power because of that reluctance, and never objected. This is not a supply problem. 6015. concerned - 1/31/2001 10:34:51 PM California has absolutely not deregulated their utilities. Deregulation cannot be said to exist if no vertical integration is allowed, if new generation capability is effectively prohibited, and if nothing lower than 'market' price is allowed to be paid intrautility for the energy. 6016. CalGal - 1/31/2001 10:35:25 PM Joe, 6017. joezan - 1/31/2001 10:56:04 PM 6018. CalGal - 1/31/2001 11:01:00 PM Deregulation has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with the fact that California has been importing at least 25% of its electricity for years, and it certainly isn't responsible for the rate cap. 6019. joezan - 1/31/2001 11:11:16 PM 6020. joezan - 1/31/2001 11:14:44 PM 6021. CalGal - 1/31/2001 11:20:19 PM There is a power shortage in Cal. 6022. joezan - 1/31/2001 11:20:21 PM 6023. CalGal - 1/31/2001 11:22:15 PM I don't see where I said it did. 6024. JJBiener - 1/31/2001 11:22:48 PM CalGal - The utility companies are responsible for the rate cap. 6025. CalGal - 1/31/2001 11:24:52 PM JJ, 6026. JJBiener - 1/31/2001 11:25:30 PM CalGal - A shortage of power has to be from either an increase in demand or a decrease in supply or both. 6027. CalGal - 1/31/2001 11:27:04 PM A shortage of power has to be from either an increase in demand or a decrease in supply or both. 6028. joezan - 1/31/2001 11:29:43 PM 6029. joezan - 1/31/2001 11:33:38 PM 6030. jexster - 1/31/2001 11:46:22 PM Open Mike, Insert Foot 6031. jexster - 1/31/2001 11:51:02 PM I see that JoeZ has conceded all that he needs to concede 6032. jexster - 1/31/2001 11:53:49 PM 2 things I'll guarantee you its NOT 6033. joezan - 2/1/2001 12:21:48 AM Take THIS, SanFran Chron! 6034. joezan - 2/1/2001 12:28:45 AM 6035. joezan - 2/1/2001 12:55:28 AM 6036. CalGal - 2/1/2001 1:14:36 AM 6037. joezan - 2/1/2001 1:22:37 AM 6038. CalGal - 2/1/2001 1:27:54 AM Joe, 6039. joezan - 2/1/2001 1:36:46 AM 6040. joezan - 2/1/2001 1:41:28 AM 6041. CalGal - 2/1/2001 1:43:38 AM And what the hell does price-gouging, legal or not, have to do with anything? 6042. CalGal - 2/1/2001 2:01:00 AM Also, keep in mind that Oregon chooses to sell us their power. Why? Because the prices are higher. 6043. joezan - 2/1/2001 8:00:24 AM 6044. jexster - 2/1/2001 8:49:56 AM Bush Energy Policy a Sham - Atlanta Journal Constitution 6045. jexster - 2/1/2001 8:59:30 AM And maybe Cal and I know a little more about a very complex problem than U JoeZ... 6046. jexster - 2/1/2001 9:08:20 AM Now the problem is and has always been primarily a problem of SUPPLY not DEMAND as JoeZ agreed at one point, the point before he was made to realize that it didn't help his argument. 6047. jexster - 2/1/2001 9:14:44 AM The second private market failure was a failure of our vaunted system of private investment. As Paul Krugman noted California's power crisis is first and foremost a crisis of underinvestment — a booming state economy undone because nobody built the power plants and gas pipelines it needed. And at least part of the reason for that underinvestment was the excessive enthusiasm of the financial markets for all things tech: when digital businesses are valued at hundreds of times earnings, while utilities have multiples more like 10, who's going to put money into boring things like generators and transmission grids? 6048. jexster - 2/1/2001 9:29:37 AM Now the utilities subsidiaries but not their parents are broke and they're coming to the state for a bailout and a rate increase, a bailout and increase being resisted by REPUBLICANS in the state assembly, republicans joining forces with the Naderites of TURN (Toward Utlitity Rate Normalization) and others... 6049. jexster - 2/1/2001 9:37:32 AM SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The Assembly early Thursday narrowly rejected a $10 billion plan to ease California's electricity crisis by letting the state buy power on behalf of two cash-starved utilities. 6050. JadeGold1 - 2/1/2001 9:43:51 AM I have to agree with JZ, the social worker, on the problems in California. California is responsible for their energy crisis. After all, Californians did elect the Repug Pete Wilson who botched deregulation so badly. 6051. jexster - 2/1/2001 9:45:35 AM Krugman sums up quite nicely, 6052. jexster - 2/1/2001 9:48:01 AM JoeZ's never one to let dreary reality get in the way when his arthritic conservative knees are set to jerkin! 6053. jexster - 2/1/2001 9:51:12 AM Blackouts, brownouts and soaring electricity rates have defined the political landscape of California since last spring. They've transformed the phrase "utility deregulation" into a household epithet. They've stopped in its tracks a nationwide wave of electricity restructuring that has already claimed two dozen states and was about to sweep the rest. 6054. jexster - 2/1/2001 9:52:50 AM God Bless Mayor Riordan and the LADPW for not selling out to private piracy! 6055. jexster - 2/1/2001 9:56:16 AM PG&E Execs Pocket Bundle On Options Exercised Just Before Shit Hit Fan 6056. janjon - 2/1/2001 11:27:09 AM The evidence is mounting that W really IS a wingnut or damned close to it. 6057. Francis Urquhart - 2/1/2001 11:29:38 AM Oh, poopstain. 6058. rubberducky - 2/1/2001 11:31:10 AM Re: Message # 6056, janjon. 6059. janjon - 2/1/2001 11:32:43 AM you don't need more damning evidence. 6060. Francis Urquhart - 2/1/2001 11:34:33 AM janjon 6061. rubberducky - 2/1/2001 11:34:34 AM 6062. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 11:36:11 AM janjon - In one of his boo-boos yesterday, he spilled a few beans about what is really behind his handlers' FBO initiative: CUTTING DOWN ON ABORTIONS. 6063. Cellar Door - 2/1/2001 11:36:38 AM Joe Lieberman got up on the Senate floor about half an hour ago,made a rousing defense of the rights of politicians and office-holders to declare their religious faiths AND THEN VOTED AGAINST ASHCROFT ON THE BASIS OF HIS RECORD!!!! 6064. CalGal - 2/1/2001 11:38:33 AM I can't imagine why anyone would NOT want to cut down the number of abortions. 6065. Francis Urquhart - 2/1/2001 11:39:21 AM Joe Lieberman is a poopstain. 6066. janjon - 2/1/2001 11:39:42 AM Frankie - People who receive gifts shouldn't then go around prancing and shouting WE WON. Not becoming. Not the American way. (Of course, neither was this particular gift.) 6067. Francis Urquhart - 2/1/2001 11:40:46 AM janjon 6068. janjon - 2/1/2001 11:42:32 AM for the umpteenth time - a fetus is not a baby. 6069. janjon - 2/1/2001 11:43:14 AM c'mon, Frankie - cut the whine and start the purring again. 6070. Francis Urquhart - 2/1/2001 11:44:55 AM janjon 6071. Indiana Jones - 2/1/2001 11:47:56 AM Big RR turns 90 as his influence expands 6072. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 11:52:35 AM janjon - for the umpteenth time - a fetus is not a baby. 6073. janjon - 2/1/2001 11:53:05 AM Was that study sponsored by the news or the editorial side or the management of the Wall Street Journal. Makes a difference. 6074. janjon - 2/1/2001 11:55:05 AM Well, no, Biener, not everyone calls a fetus a baby. We certainly didn't and we don't to our friends, except when talking in a context that means after birth, such as "When is the baby being born." 6075. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 11:55:13 AM janjon - You are really into self-delusion, aren't you? Try a dose reality for a change. 6076. Francis Urquhart - 2/1/2001 11:55:31 AM Poopstains? 6077. janjon - 2/1/2001 11:56:37 AM self-delusion? My god, get a mirror Biener. 6078. CalGal - 2/1/2001 11:56:39 AM JJ, 6079. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 12:00:18 PM janjon - Your attempt to dehumanize a baby by calling it a fetus is vile and disgusting. 6080. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 12:01:36 PM Cal - What are you talking about? How can killing babies be preferable? 6081. Indiana Jones - 2/1/2001 12:03:11 PM Holding all other things equal, more abortions is preferable. 6082. janjon - 2/1/2001 12:03:23 PM Biener. Talk about self-delusion. 6083. janjon - 2/1/2001 12:06:24 PM how does the right (not obligation) to have an abortion equate to mandatory sterilizations? 6084. CalGal - 2/1/2001 12:07:02 PM JJ, 6085. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 12:09:57 PM janjon - A baby is a baby no matter what age it is. It is an independent human life that should not be ended if it becomes inconvenient. 6086. Ronski - 2/1/2001 12:10:02 PM JJ, 6087. JadeGold1 - 2/1/2001 12:11:45 PM Why does anyone bother debating abortion? 6088. Indiana Jones - 2/1/2001 12:14:05 PM Cal: Abortion is permanent too. 6089. janjon - 2/1/2001 12:15:10 PM sidebar: 6090. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 12:15:11 PM Cal - Until you acknowledge that abortions are not "killing babies", there's really not much point in discussing it with you. 6091. janjon - 2/1/2001 12:17:54 PM Here we go again. I guess. 6092. Indiana Jones - 2/1/2001 12:18:03 PM janjon: I'm not equating abortion and sterilization. What I've said is that arguments supporting abortion as being a "good" thing would (I expect--Cal hasn't made them yet) likely overlap with arguments for sterilization. 6093. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 12:19:49 PM Ronksi - Fetus is a medical term. Baby is not. Pro-abortion advocates use the term fetus to dehumanize the baby to cover up the fact that a human life is being extinguished. I use the term baby because I refuse to treat a human life as an inconvenient growth that can be removed like a tumor. 6094. janjon - 2/1/2001 12:20:51 PM for the umpteenth time - a fetus is not a baby. 6095. CalGal - 2/1/2001 12:21:27 PM Indy, 6096. CalGal - 2/1/2001 12:22:28 PM Indy, 6097. janjon - 2/1/2001 12:22:31 PM indy - except that there are two salient distinctions which cut across any congruence - mandatory vs. voluntary, permanent vs. not (assuming, of course, that you get beyond the hurdle that it is indeed permanent as to the given fetus.) 6098. Indiana Jones - 2/1/2001 12:34:45 PM janjon: But if you introduce those two points, then you do get back into the argument of individual rights and morality, etc., rather than strict social utility. 6099. Ronski - 2/1/2001 12:38:26 PM Fetus is not an arcane medical term that no one understands, like parethesis or erythema multiforme. It is a common word. 6100. Cellar Door - 2/1/2001 12:38:47 PM Better a poopstain than an asshole. 6101. CalGal - 2/1/2001 12:39:11 PM Indy, 6102. Indiana Jones - 2/1/2001 12:39:55 PM (cont.) 6103. CalGal - 2/1/2001 12:40:27 PM But if you introduce those two points, then you do get back into the argument of individual rights and morality, etc., rather than strict social utility 6104. janjon - 2/1/2001 12:41:20 PM Indy - the leap indeed is whether the fetus has any so-called rights. The law, as you know, generally says no (lets not get into the late-term abortion morass, ok?). I, for one, think the law is dead on correct. Ergo, both legally and, for me, morally and ethically, there is no need to consider any implications as to an abortion being permanent insofar as the fetus is concerned. Thus, there is no issues regarding trumping "individual's rights." 6105. CalGal - 2/1/2001 12:41:32 PM To put it as succinctly as I can, before making any other argument about abortion, you have to decide the personhood question first. 6106. Cellar Door - 2/1/2001 12:45:50 PM 6107. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 12:47:51 PM Cal - You have to realize that it is not worth discussing unless you accept that my position is also the legal reality. 6108. CalGal - 2/1/2001 12:51:24 PM JJ, 6109. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 12:51:28 PM janjon, calgal, ronski - Please distinguish between a fetus and a baby. What exactly are the differences. 6110. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 12:53:19 PM Cal - But what isn't fine is your blanket declaration that "of course" we want to reduce abortions. 6111. Indiana Jones - 2/1/2001 12:53:22 PM I am not saying that abortions should be forced. 6112. rubberducky - 2/1/2001 12:54:15 PM Re: Message # 6106, Cellar Door. 6113. CalGal - 2/1/2001 12:54:19 PM JJ, 6114. janjon - 2/1/2001 12:57:09 PM and, as we have proved here so often, we are not able to get beyond the big question. I think Biener is a wingnut and he thinks I am inhuman. 6115. CalGal - 2/1/2001 12:57:15 PM Indy, 6116. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 1:01:50 PM janjon - and, as we have proved here so often, we are not able to get beyond the big question. 6117. CalGal - 2/1/2001 1:04:31 PM Janjon, 6118. Indiana Jones - 2/1/2001 1:05:48 PM janjon: I don't think a zygote is a baby. I also don't think the act of delivery turns what was inside a woman's womb into a baby. That happened somewhere in between. 6119. CalGal - 2/1/2001 1:10:14 PM Social utility arguments do bother me, however, because they smack of exactly the opposite: allowing a greater, group-defined morality (or "good") to interfere with an individual's choice. 6120. janjon - 2/1/2001 1:10:53 PM Oh, utter bull shit, Biener. You start with the rockhard premise that a fetus=baby=rights=rights equal to the putative mother's. You then ask for people to waste their time trying to punch a hole in your particular water. Why bother. From much experience, one know's that your views are hidebound. In this context, you simply say fetus=baby=etc., period. And, thus, it all starts all over again. 6121. CalGal - 2/1/2001 1:11:51 PM Incidentally, it was you, Indy, who brought up social utility. Not me. Now you are also imposing a very weird definition for the term that you introduced. 6122. Ronski - 2/1/2001 1:12:07 PM A baby is an extremely young child, one that is, or formerly was in the case of a deceased one, breathing. 6123. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 1:12:28 PM Cellar - Better a poopstain than an asshole. 6124. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 1:15:45 PM 6125. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 1:19:53 PM janjon - You start with the rockhard premise that a fetus=baby=rights=rights equal to the putative mother's. 6126. janjon - 2/1/2001 1:21:11 PM incidentally, Biener - one of the (amusing) ironies here is the way you tut tut about people whom you believe don't defend their ideas and who instead use only insults. 6127. janjon - 2/1/2001 1:22:33 PM run for cover? 6128. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 1:22:49 PM Ronski - A baby is an extremely young child, one that is, or formerly was in the case of a deceased one, breathing. 6129. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 1:22:56 PM 6130. Ronski - 2/1/2001 1:27:14 PM JJ, 6131. Indiana Jones - 2/1/2001 1:28:55 PM You just said that you feel abortion is wrong and should be discouraged (even while being legal). That is allowing a greater group-defined morality to interfere with an individual's choice. 6132. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 1:29:22 PM 6133. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 1:32:28 PM janjon - Lets see - you believe, period, that a fetus=baby. 6134. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 1:33:42 PM Judith - If it can survive outside a womans body, it's a baby; if it can't it's not. 6135. Ronski - 2/1/2001 1:34:30 PM And I think most of us here, as most people in the country generally, agree that there are important distinctions between a zygote and a fetus that is in its late-second or third term. Many people who are not terribly uncomfortable with early-term abortions are profoundly uncomfortable with late-term ones. And I see no problem with the law reflecting that. I do see a problem with a law criminalizing all abortions: mainly, back-room butchers and the deaths of young women. 6136. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 1:35:41 PM Ronski - A fetus in a womb is not. 6137. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 1:40:16 PM Ronski - I do see a problem with a law criminalizing all abortions: mainly, back-room butchers and the deaths of young women. 6138. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 1:41:31 PM 6139. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 1:41:33 PM Judith - a miscarriage at 7 weeks of pregnancy is not a baby. 6140. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 1:45:52 PM Judith - Have you ever heard of a "baby" being born six weeks from conception and living, assisted or otherwise? I haven't. 6141. arkymalarky - 2/1/2001 1:46:26 PM "I think it is safe to say that stigma no longer exists." 6142. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 1:47:24 PM 6143. arkymalarky - 2/1/2001 1:47:47 PM In fact, ironically, teen mothers are almost always from the lower classes and/or those who've long since quit worrying about their reputations. Does that mean they're the only ones who get pregnant? I highly doubt it. 6144. jonesatlaw - 2/1/2001 1:51:43 PM The problem with abortion discussions is that everyone tries to force things into categories which do not fully fit in order to butress their point. Reason would tell us that a zygote is not the same thing as a fetus, which in turn is not the same thing as a delivered baby. However, in order to support the postion that abortion is either homicide or a personal choice beyond public concern, people try to blur or eliminate these distinctions. Further, even if we accept such forced definitions, the matter is not a clear cut as advocates desire. Not every person is accorded exactly equal rights as every other person in every circumstance. In instances it is not only morally defensible to kill, it may even be a moral duty to do so. Equally, personal choice may be overcome by the common good or by the rights of another. Roe and Doe recognize this and thus the trimester distinction was drawn. It is hardly pretty and certainly not absolute, but as a matter of public law and shared constitutional values, nothing better has been devised. 6145. arkymalarky - 2/1/2001 1:52:01 PM I miscarried at 4 or 5 weeks (right after finding out i was pregnant). I wish it hadn't happened, but it was nowhere the same as losing a 22 week old fetus, physically or emotionally. 6146. robertjayb - 2/1/2001 1:53:51 PM . 6147. arkymalarky - 2/1/2001 1:54:58 PM I agree, Jones. It's very difficult to argue with people who only see absolutes. There are degrees, necessarily often subjective, to most issues, and abortion is no different. But it's pointless trying to have a reasonable debate with someone who refuses to see that many issues don't resolve with simple yes or no answers. 6148. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 1:55:07 PM 6149. arkymalarky - 2/1/2001 1:55:22 PM Love that, Robert. 6150. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 1:56:51 PM 6151. Ronski - 2/1/2001 2:00:11 PM Re: Message # 6137 6152. CalGal - 2/1/2001 2:02:59 PM Indy, 6153. Ronski - 2/1/2001 2:04:54 PM As for the transition question, no one knows exactly when a fetus attains personhood, or develops a soul, which is why it should not be decided by the state. It is a matter of personal, and metaphysical, opinion, not scientific fact. It remains a fact, however, that a living baby outside the womb is a baby by any reasonable definition of the word, and a fetus inside the womb is a fetus by any reasonable definition, and the two entities are not identical. 6154. Ronski - 2/1/2001 2:09:59 PM Message # 6151 6155. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 2:23:33 PM Ronski - As for the transition question, no one knows exactly when a fetus attains personhood, or develops a soul, which is why it should not be decided by the state. 6156. rubberducky - 2/1/2001 2:24:15 PM much to no one's surprise, the Senate Confirms Ashcroft 6157. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 2:27:22 PM 6158. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 2:29:33 PM 6159. robertjayb - 2/1/2001 2:33:57 PM . 6160. Ronski - 2/1/2001 2:36:09 PM JJ, 6161. Ronski - 2/1/2001 2:40:13 PM And I think that the pro-abortion crowd is not the one calling for the state to decide this matter. The state itself, in the form of the judiciary, has taken it upon itself to do this, by drawing a line after the first trimester. I think most pro-abortion activists would prefer the state to stay out of it entirely. (Except that many of these people then want the state to finance abortions, something I do not much like.) 6162. glendajean - 2/1/2001 2:49:22 PM Nine years ago today, my partner and I had a union service. We'd been together for a couple of years at the time. 6163. janjon - 2/1/2001 2:53:42 PM I share your hopes for you, Glendajean. And wish you many more years of happiness together. 6164. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 2:55:09 PM Judith - But that is impossible to decide...are you saying it is a BABY from the very moment of conception? 6165. theDiva - 2/1/2001 2:56:47 PM glendajean 6166. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 2:58:22 PM Ronski - I strongly object to calling someone who terminates the development of a zygote a baby killer. 6167. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 2:59:02 PM 6168. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 2:59:57 PM GJ - Nine years ago today, my partner and I had a union service. 6169. janjon - 2/1/2001 3:03:09 PM I don't know why I am doing this, but 6164 is just too much, heartfelt as it may be. 6170. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 3:09:40 PM 6171. arkymalarky - 2/1/2001 3:09:50 PM Happy anniversary, GJ! 6172. janjon - 2/1/2001 3:12:37 PM Arky - if you have access to the Wall Street Journal, it ran the story I've heard about (it was to the effect that W told these Catholic leaders that the real intent of his faith-based orgo. initiative was to curtail abortions. I haven't read the Journal today yet myself, but saw reference to this in the daily summary of news that Slate sends out daily via email. I posted on this way up there, which is what led to the here-we-go-again abortion posts. 6173. janjon - 2/1/2001 3:12:56 PM oops. Judith. 6174. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 3:13:53 PM 6175. seadate - 2/1/2001 3:13:56 PM Arky, 6176. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 3:15:39 PM 6177. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 3:17:22 PM 6178. arkymalarky - 2/1/2001 3:19:27 PM Thanks Seadate. 6179. concerned - 2/1/2001 3:36:21 PM A final tally was delayed until one senator returned from a funeral but Democratic leaders said they expected to get at least 42 no votes from their party who oppose him as too conservative to enforce laws he does not agree with. 6180. concerned - 2/1/2001 3:39:05 PM Most certainly a baby on a respirator is a baby. A fetus in a womb is not. 6181. robertjayb - 2/1/2001 3:43:29 PM . 6182. PelleNilsson - 2/1/2001 3:52:31 PM 6183. JadeGold1 - 2/1/2001 3:53:55 PM Pity that tommydemoron doesn't understand that merely agreeing to "enforce the law" is a very low standard. No Attorney General nominee is going to testify otherwise. Even David Duke is going to testify that he would "enforce the law." 6184. concerned - 2/1/2001 4:00:39 PM Re. 6183 - 6185. OhioSTOPAS - 2/1/2001 4:04:19 PM "Religious communities" that mow down law enforcement officers with machine guns, anyway. 6186. OhioSTOPAS - 2/1/2001 4:05:52 PM And of course, the fire was started by those inside, not those on the outside trying to arrest the killers. 6187. concerned - 2/1/2001 4:09:42 PM Re. 6185 - 6188. seadate - 2/1/2001 4:11:10 PM Something GW would never do. 6189. concerned - 2/1/2001 4:11:23 PM Ohio - 6190. concerned - 2/1/2001 4:12:55 PM There is no possible excuse for the Feds firing incendiary devices at a wooden compound lit with candles and the like. 6191. JadeGold1 - 2/1/2001 4:13:29 PM If you're a white male Xtian who shares the "same sexual preference as most men," you have little to fear from Ashcroft. 6192. OhioSTOPAS - 2/1/2001 4:13:46 PM Admittedly it went horribly, horribly wrong because of the suicidal actions of Koresh and his followers - but how would you have brought the cop-killers to justice, concerned? 6193. concerned - 2/1/2001 4:15:00 PM And having the Stooge Reno DoJ being forced to admit lying about the nature of the Branch Davidians for six years, why should anybody but a fool believe what they have to say about Waco now? 6194. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 4:17:20 PM Pelle - Here he puts on equal footing laws (but actually there never was any law concerning the Final Solution) enacted by one of the worst and most vicious dictatorships in history with those of a democratic society, a society some claim to be the most democratic on earth. 6195. concerned - 2/1/2001 4:17:53 PM re. 6192 - 6196. janjon - 2/1/2001 4:18:03 PM I have never seen concerned as unbalanced as in the last few posts. 6197. concerned - 2/1/2001 4:19:33 PM Re. 6196 - 6198. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 4:19:38 PM 6199. bbb - 2/1/2001 4:20:32 PM Bush's A-team Cabinet is 100% complete! 6200. concerned - 2/1/2001 4:22:23 PM Re. 6198 - 6201. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 4:22:29 PM Jade - If you're a white male Xtian who shares the "same sexual preference as most men," you have little to fear from Ashcroft. 6202. janjon - 2/1/2001 4:23:47 PM concerned. nah. you revealed a lot more than that. 6203. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 4:23:52 PM 6204. ranheim - 2/1/2001 4:24:00 PM As a physician I choose not to do abortions - and I won't use the new - to the USA - abortion pill. As a general rule, I am against abortions. 6205. seadate - 2/1/2001 4:25:44 PM How can Ashcroft be any worse than the white male he's displacing? 6206. bbb - 2/1/2001 4:27:19 PM GWB governs quietly and effectively. 6207. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 4:27:49 PM Judith - Does this man really seem to you to be a man of principle? 6208. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 4:30:27 PM janjon - (pssst. - Reno will be ranked as being amongst the best A.G.s we've ever had.) 6209. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 4:30:31 PM 6210. bbb - 2/1/2001 4:30:51 PM Ironically, most Dems' alleged "concerns" about Ashcroft were derived from Reno's track records. 6211. janjon - 2/1/2001 4:31:49 PM We'll see how this cabal to be of Ashcroft, Olsen, Manning (I think it is -the Prof. at Columbia Law who worked for Bush on the Bush v. Gore travesty and who is a former clerk for both Bork and Scalia), and a few others does in enforcing ALL the laws. 6212. concerned - 2/1/2001 4:32:00 PM re. 6202 - 6213. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 4:32:27 PM Seadate - How can Ashcroft be any worse than the white male he's displacing? 6214. janjon - 2/1/2001 4:33:49 PM Ashcroft may be a Christian but he is of the ilk who believes that his and only his way is the true way and that furthering that way justifies the means used to do so. 6215. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 4:35:10 PM 6216. bbb - 2/1/2001 4:37:50 PM Clinton's final days included a deal to avoid indictment in the Monica Lewinsky investigation, pardons of fugitive financier Marc Rich and other political supporters and his and Hillary Rodham Clinton's acceptance of $190,000 in china, furniture and other parting gifts. 6217. bbb - 2/1/2001 4:39:34 PM Will Monica Lewinsky visit Clinton's new office in New York city soon? 6218. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 4:42:00 PM 6219. janjon - 2/1/2001 4:42:52 PM Yeah, that post made me go DUH too. 6220. bbb - 2/1/2001 4:45:02 PM Bush Visiting Democrats All Weekend 6221. OhioSTOPAS - 2/1/2001 4:46:10 PM bbb: Not to confuse you with facts, but the $190,000 in what you call "parting gifts" includes gifts given to the Clintons over President Clinton's entire 8-year term. Also, it includes at least one expensive item that the Clintons are leaving behind and donating to the White House. Get the straight scoop at www.salon.com. 6222. bbb - 2/1/2001 4:46:35 PM ''Senator Daschle and Senator Dorgan and, I think, the entire caucus want to work very closely with the new president,'' said Daschle spokeswoman Ranit Schmelzer. 6223. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 4:46:48 PM 6224. janjon - 2/1/2001 4:48:11 PM bbb is not the type who will allow facts to confuse him - when they get in the way of the so-called points he wants to make. 6225. janjon - 2/1/2001 4:49:01 PM President By Gift, Judith!!! 6226. bbb - 2/1/2001 4:49:31 PM And so, Bush is scheduled to sit for at least 20 minutes of questioning by some 150 House Democrats on Sunday afternoon -- in between the lawmakers' private discussions of smart suburban growth and union organizing with AFL-CIO president John Sweeney, and their free time for snowboarding or target shooting. 6227. bbb - 2/1/2001 4:50:32 PM Who will be the new DNC Chairman? 6228. bbb - 2/1/2001 4:51:30 PM Thank you,Senator Russ Feingold. 6229. bbb - 2/1/2001 4:53:07 PM Fleischer told reporters on Thursday what to expect at what he cast as more of a ''get-together'' than hard-core strategy huddle: 6230. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 4:57:14 PM 6231. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 4:59:34 PM janjon - Ashcroft may be a Christian but he is of the ilk who believes that his and only his way is the true way and that furthering that way justifies the means used to do so. 6232. seadate - 2/1/2001 4:59:40 PM JJ said It is fair game to criticize the job Reno has done as AG. This shit is out of bounds. Not all women can be Elaine Chao. 6233. Cellar Door - 2/1/2001 5:02:05 PM "Aschroft is a Christian." 6234. bbb - 2/1/2001 5:02:47 PM The Post said a Jackson aide confirmed the existence of the letter Wednesday but said it had not been acted on. Jackson spokesmen have consistently denied that Karin Stanford, 39 -- former head of the Washington office of the civil rights activist's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and the mother of his child -- used money from Jackson-affiliated charities to buy her $365,000 house in Los Angeles, the paper said. 6235. bbb - 2/1/2001 5:04:40 PM Jesse Jackson's payoff to his mistress 6236. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 5:05:16 PM 6237. janjon - 2/1/2001 5:05:42 PM Lieing to further a political objecti 6238. bbb - 2/1/2001 5:06:48 PM Stanford gave birth to a daughter in May 1999, months after Jackson began counseling then President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. 6239. concerned - 2/1/2001 5:07:51 PM 6218. JudithAtHome - 2/1/01 9:42:00 PM 6240. bbb - 2/1/2001 5:08:16 PM JAH, 6241. concerned - 2/1/2001 5:08:51 PM bbb - 6242. bbb - 2/1/2001 5:10:28 PM AG Ashcroft should look into the pardon of Marc Rich,a non-US citizen and a fugitive. 6243. janjon - 2/1/2001 5:10:59 PM Lieing to further a political objective (I am thinking of White) is an example of his using any means to justify his ends. 6244. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 5:11:31 PM 6245. bbb - 2/1/2001 5:12:28 PM concerned, 6246. concerned - 2/1/2001 5:13:06 PM Ashcroft should open an investigation into the role Stooge Reno played in suppressing the campaign finance IC investigation and in obstructing the release of documents to Congress. And he should boot Eric Holder if he's still hanging around. 6247. bbb - 2/1/2001 5:14:51 PM JAH, 6248. concerned - 2/1/2001 5:15:23 PM Re. 6244 - 6249. bbb - 2/1/2001 5:16:08 PM Thank you , Senator Chris Dodd for the vote. 6250. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 5:21:48 PM janjon - Lieing to further a political objective (I am thinking of White) is an example of his using any means to justify his ends. 6251. bbb - 2/1/2001 5:24:48 PM http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/30/peltier.clinton/index.html 6252. janjon - 2/1/2001 5:25:24 PM dispute your premise, but in any event it doesn't go to mine - Ashcroft's apparent beliefs that his causes are so incontrovertably correct and true that it is permissible to use the means necessary to further or protect them. 6253. OhioSTOPAS - 2/1/2001 5:26:39 PM JJ, what has been misrepresented about Ashcroft's record? 6254. bbb - 2/1/2001 5:27:07 PM Peltier blasts Clinton for not pardoning him 6255. concerned - 2/1/2001 5:28:21 PM I think janjon's committed himself to an incorrect assumption about Ashcroft. This guy is going to be a boy scout. No pornographic tapes of Ashcroft with a prostitute. No driving while puking drunk in Florida. No burning religious compounds to the ground. The law will come first and foremost with Ashcroft. 6256. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 5:28:53 PM 6257. concerned - 2/1/2001 5:30:58 PM Re. 6254 - 6258. CalGal - 2/1/2001 5:31:32 PM I am surprised that Clinton didn't pardon Peltier. That was a far easier win. 6259. janjon - 2/1/2001 5:31:55 PM well, we're back in our WOW mood and mode, eh, Concerned? 6260. CalGal - 2/1/2001 5:34:06 PM I don't think there's anything wrong with protecting that pathetic group in Waco. That was during the government's overreactive phase. 6261. bbb - 2/1/2001 5:35:27 PM http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/31/rothenberg.column/index.html 6262. bbb - 2/1/2001 5:37:28 PM In accepting gifts on leaving the White House and issuing a pardon to Marc Rich, Clinton has embarrassed Democrats and reminded Republicans why they disliked the Clintons. Commentators from all ideological points of view have criticized the Clintons, and even some Democrats have shown they are uncomfortable with the former First Family's decisions. Bill and Hillary Clinton have made the new First Family look dignified. 6263. janjon - 2/1/2001 5:39:32 PM alright, already. 6264. bbb - 2/1/2001 5:40:01 PM Why did Clinton pardon his own brother Roger? What did Roger do? 6265. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 5:41:14 PM 6266. janjon - 2/1/2001 5:41:19 PM That's it. 6267. bbb - 2/1/2001 5:41:26 PM Why did Clinton pardon ex-CIA Director Deutcch,but not Dr. Wen Ho Lee? 6268. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 5:42:20 PM 6269. bbb - 2/1/2001 5:45:47 PM JAH, 6270. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 5:46:43 PM janjon - Ashcroft's apparent beliefs that his causes are so incontrovertably correct and true that it is permissible to use the means necessary to further or protect them. 6271. JudithAtHome - 2/1/2001 5:46:48 PM 6272. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 5:51:50 PM Ohio - what has been misrepresented about Ashcroft's record? 6273. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 5:53:40 PM bbb - Did Roger steal Bill's toys in their childhood? 6274. OhioSTOPAS - 2/1/2001 6:04:17 PM "The schools in St. Louis were not segregated despite Judge Hungate's assertion that they were." 6275. Cellar Door - 2/1/2001 6:07:16 PM He didn't have to pardon Wen Ho Lee because no charges were filed against him MORON!!! 6276. jexster - 2/1/2001 6:09:17 PM - the largest opposition vote for a cabinet officer in over 30 years 6277. jexster - 2/1/2001 6:09:31 PM Honeymoon over 6278. jexster - 2/1/2001 6:13:08 PM The worst thing that can be said of the White situation is 6279. jexster - 2/1/2001 6:13:52 PM and Taylor was specifically speaking to Ashcroft's sleazy conduct on the White nomination..... 6280. jexster - 2/1/2001 6:16:23 PM That would make him no different from those people who are using that same tactic against him. 6281. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 6:35:30 PM Ohio - So the Democrats' misrepresentation of Mr. Ashcroft's record consists of stating that the facts were as the court concluded them to be? 6282. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 6:37:07 PM Jex - And precisely which tactics have been used against Ashcroft that remote approximate those he used against White? 6283. robertjayb - 2/1/2001 7:45:18 PM . 6284. jonesatlaw - 2/1/2001 7:54:59 PM Who screwed the margins!!!??? 6285. Cellar Door - 2/1/2001 7:57:05 PM Calling him a racist despite a long record of working against civil rights enforcement and appointing lawn jockeys to judicial and administrative jobs as governor. 6286. wonkers2 - 2/1/2001 9:11:45 PM The GOP has a corner on black and Jewish lawn jockeys? (Jewish lawn jockeys??--is there a term for the likes of the Kristols and the Podhoretzes and the Bieners?) 6287. JadeGold1 - 2/1/2001 9:40:15 PM -is there a term for the likes of the Kristols and the Podhoretzes and the Bieners? 6288. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 10:02:34 PM Jewish lawn jockeys??--is there a term for the likes of the Kristols and the Podhoretzes and the Bieners? 6289. jexster - 2/1/2001 10:04:35 PM CA Legislature Passes Gov. Davis's Power Buy Bill 6290. joezan - 2/1/2001 10:05:06 PM 6291. jexster - 2/1/2001 10:10:04 PM With the Ashcroft fight have lanced the Bush boil on the Body Politic and can now move to remove the stain from its underpants 6292. joezan - 2/1/2001 10:10:13 PM 6293. jexster - 2/1/2001 10:17:34 PM Bush the Krypto Keynesian - So the President Actually DOES Control the Economy 6294. jexster - 2/1/2001 10:19:20 PM "Kapos" 6295. JadeGold1 - 2/1/2001 10:25:28 PM After Clarence finishes swearing in Ashcroft, he'll put on the silks, pick up his lantern and resume his post at the end of Scalia's driveway. 6296. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 10:29:12 PM It's nice to see virulent hatred is alive and well in the Democratic party. 6297. joezan - 2/1/2001 10:32:29 PM 6298. Al D - 2/1/2001 10:32:36 PM I would imagine Ashcroft just might be a mite homophobic, which I'm sure makes him a rare bird in Congress. Why, I imagine he would be far out of the mainstream on that issue, not a bit approving of homosexual behavior, not like all the guys I know. 6299. JadeGold1 - 2/1/2001 10:37:28 PM Hatred, Wiener? Not I. 6300. AceofSpades - 2/1/2001 10:52:04 PM Forsaken for A Rich Fugitive 6301. jexster - 2/1/2001 10:52:51 PM RubberD...another link of interest 6302. JJBiener - 2/1/2001 11:09:30 PM Jade - I'd never stoop to Ashcroft's level. 6303. joezan - 2/2/2001 12:45:24 AM 6304. joezan - 2/2/2001 12:54:30 AM 6305. AceofSpades - 2/2/2001 2:09:07 AM 6306. OhioSTOPAS - 2/2/2001 6:33:59 AM If only Bill's eye had been the only organ that wandered . . . 6307. KuligintheHooligan - 2/2/2001 8:09:50 AM WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A top Senate Republican threatened to call former President Clinton to testify about his pardon of fugitive billionaire commodities trader Marc Rich, increasing pressure on Clinton to explain one of his final acts in office. 6308. KuligintheHooligan - 2/2/2001 8:10:15 AM Also on Thursday Oklahoma Republican Rep. Ernest Istook warned the head of the General Services Administration against paying the full cost of office space for Clinton in New York, citing reports that the former president planned to spend $600,000 or more per year on rent, three times the amount authorized by Congress. 6309. wonkers2 - 2/2/2001 8:19:03 AM Rich's pardon was probably a mistake, but one of the main arguments for it was that the RICO anti-racketeering law should not have been applied by over-zealous prosecutors in his case. I believe I read that current guidelines specify that the statute which was designed for the Mafia does not apply to IRS cases. I heard on NPR this morning a story of another of Clinton's pardons which involved the application by over-zealous prosecutors of the death penalty in the Drug Kingpin law to a small time marijuana grower in Georgia. His accuser, the only witness, has recanted. The man convicted has been on death row for several years. Clinton commuted his sentence from death to life in prison. From the story on the radio, the man probably should have been pardoned. 6310. Rosetta Stone - 2/2/2001 8:20:23 AM Another example of how the leftist media promotes/protects themselve from upstarts 6311. Rosetta Stone - 2/2/2001 8:21:53 AM themselve=themselves 6312. joezan - 2/2/2001 8:36:10 AM 6313. joezan - 2/2/2001 8:40:59 AM 6314. joezan - 2/2/2001 8:42:02 AM 6315. JadeGold1 - 2/2/2001 8:47:16 AM The "hearings" won't materialize. They are only more Repug posturing to divert attention from Curious George's woeful performance. 6316. JadeGold1 - 2/2/2001 8:57:52 AM Ashcroft was confirmed Grand Wiz....er...Attorney General by a scant 8 vote margin. This margin was even smaller than the number Edwin "The Pig" Meese received. 6317. OhioSTOPAS - 2/2/2001 9:22:42 AM There won't be a sheet on an empty chair in President Bush's cabinet meetings now. 6318. Indiana Jones - 2/2/2001 9:35:11 AM Saw this on TT:
Worry not. I work for GWB.
Wombat:
BBB has no reason to say anything; he's the king of cut'n'paste and linking...his fingers do the talking. It's as though he sets a goal each day: X amount of links and X amount of cut'n'pastes...nothing can keep him from his appointed posts.
I get it now. Silly me. All spending increases...attributable to Clinton. All tax increases....attributable to the infinite omniscent wisdom of a Republican-controlled Congress. All demonstrations of fiscal discipline....attributed to the remarkable foresight and genius of the Republican-controlled Congress. All examples of pork barrel projects and spending foolishness and loss of fiscal discipline attributable to Clinton abetted by the evil and short-sighted Democrats in Congress. That about sum it up?
Oh, and of course when Greenspan is testifying before the Senate with a limited amount of time to get his points across and with the desire to sell his POV on fiscal policy to a body that has the power to enact his preferences, he wouldn't purposely omit Clinton's role in setting fiscal policy knowing that bringing it up would tick off at least half of his listening audience.
we have a Current Events thread for such posts!
what does eToys have to do with Politics? if you have a political point to make, please make it - otherwise some of this stuff is going to get moved to the right thread.
"Those aren't weasel words, it's just common sense..."
Elaborating:
There is no meaningful ridid definition of "recession," as Alan greenspan made clear yesterday. My original point is that the difference between plus and minus 0.1% growth was a very trivial one, and it's silly to insist the latter is a "recession" and the former is not.
You can't just claim that "Oh, we've had positive one tenth of one percent growth, and since that's positive growth (though much less than the rate of population growth), that's not a 'recession.'" Obviously it is. There is no meaningful difference between positive 0.1 % growth and negative 0.1% growth, except that they are separated by two tenths of one percent, and the latter is therefore two tenths of one percent worse than the former.
Live with it.
bbb says he works for GWB, eh. Another low level civil servant who's internet use hasn't been ferreted out at work. Yet.
President Bush, in office less than a week, has scored an early triumph in his campaign for a $1.6 trillion tax cut, winning Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's support for tax relief.
Greenspan, who until recently was insisting that the best use of the projected surpluses was to pay off the national debt, said Thursday that the surplus estimates have gotten so large that he now believes there will be enough money to pay off the debt and cut taxes too.
In testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, Greenspan said that if the surplus projections come true -- $5 trillion over the next 10 years -- the government will be able to eliminate the $3.4 trillion in debt held by the public and have enough left over to reduce taxes.
The president and other Republicans were quick to praise Greenspan's comments. Bush told reporters at the White House that he believed Greenspan had gotten it "just right. He recognizes that we need good monetary policy and sound fiscal policy to make sure that the economy grows."
thoughtful:
Are you claiming Alan Greenspan doesn't know his business?
Clinton will be remember as The New Economy President.
++++++++++++++++++
No. He will be remembered as the Blue Dress President.
Oh, definitely. I'm quite certain he'd withhold relevant information to avoid "ticking off" his audience.
Has Greenspan come out in favor of the President*'s proposed tax cut?
Only an idiot would claim that two quarters of +0.1% growth (less than the rate of inflation, less than the rate of population growth) isn't a recession, but that suddenly negative 0.1% growth becomes a recession merely because it crosses some arbitrary line).
5151. AceofSpades - 1/26/01 1:25:10 PM
"As the last 30 or so posts show, people (even "learned" souls) can argue and go back and forth ad nauseum as to is it a recession and if so who's."
...
Personally, I take Alan Greenspan's word as to recession and who's responsible over, say, Andy F's.
In post 5071, you argue that we should not go by such a technical definition of a recession. Then in 5151, you say you accept Greenspan's definition (which is the technical one). Can you say "inconsistency"?
Lesson # 1 :
Do not underestimate GWB.
-Bill Clinton
"Has Greenspan come out in favor of the President*'s proposed tax cut?"
He did not specifically any *particular* tax cut plan. He endorsed *a* tax cut.
He also did not criticize any particular tax cut plan... such as the one foremost on everyone's minds. Which is odd, if he had a problem with the tax cut he knows is coming.
Lesson # 2:
It's a mistake to underestimate GWB and his A-Team Cabinets.
Wombat:
Has Greenspan come out in favor of the President*'s proposed tax cut?
If he has, it hasn't made the news....in fact, he said he wouldn't give an answer because that was a political decision.
" Then in 5151, you say you accept Greenspan's definition (which is the technical one)."
Greenspan's definition is not a "technical" one, by which I mean "rigid technical" one.
It's common sense. If you are either at or near zero growth or worse, you're in a recession. You aren't suddenly NOT in a recession merely because growth pops up one tenth of a percent above zero. One tenth of a percent growth is better than zero growth (by one tenth of a percent, precisely), but there's no "magic threshhold" requiring a formally negative growth rate.
"Can you say "inconsistency"? "
Your entire premise is wrong. I'm using Greenspan's defintion, which is not a rigid technical definition, but a common-sense and looser definiton.
I am relying on Greenspan's "definition" througout... and Greenspan expressly noted that there is no meaningful rigidly mathematical bromide which determines a "recession."
Idiot.
How is the media recount going,sore loser.
But I guess Ace sees Greenspans answer as coming out in favor of it. The fact he didn't criticise it must mean he's in favor of it.
Ace wouldn't accept that from a liberal as an answer but we're to accept it from him.
Should impeach the four liberal FLSC justices if you live in Florida.
Really!
"Tis a Gift To Be Simple" became "This is a Gift to the Simple". Sung in five part melody with strong four part dissonance in the background.
There is also no formal "two quarter rule." If you have a recession for one quarter, you know what you call that? A recession lasting one quarter.
Again, there is no "magic threshold" which says that stagnation for 120 days is NOT a "recession" but that stagnation for 120+ days suddenly, and magically, becomes a "recession."
Me, Message # 5088: "I think Reagan still had a year or two left in office when he was given the house, but I could be wrong."
Ace, Message # 5091: "Wrong, as usual. He was out of office."
Media Research Center (!): ". .. in 1986, friends of the Reagans bought them a house in Bel Air."
Ace, you're spoiling me.
Does that mean he will be remembered for drastic failures of the so-called "New Economy"?
Your little media-repeated bromide is akin to claiming that a speed of 300 mph, and ONLY speeds of 300 mph or more, are, technically, "FAST."
Duhhh. 299 mph is "fast," too. You're attempting to impose an arbitrary and relatively meaningless exact defintion on the notion of "fast."
Two quarters of negative growth = a recession is a "rule of thumb." It's not a "definition," and it has no magic talismanic power.
"But I guess Ace sees Greenspans answer as coming out in favor of it."
I "see" it that way because he used vague words like, "I am in favor of a tax cut, and I believe a tax cut can do noticeable good, especially in the event of a long economic downturn."
I understand, of course, if you have trouble interpreting these words, or interpret them to mean "Tax cuts are for weiners" or "I was not alone with Monica."
"The fact he didn't criticise it must mean he's in favor of it."
He was expressly asked about it. He declined to criticize it, or any other tax cut plan. He's just in favor of tax cuts of some sort, and will not get into details.
One might have expected him to use very cautionary language if he was against Bush's plan, rather than stating we will probably have enough for both significant tax cuts and some debt reduction.
"Ace wouldn't accept that from a liberal as an answer but we're to accept it from him."
Greenspan probably *is* a liberal.
In any event, you can take it however you like it.
Do tell me what Molly Ivins thinks, though. I'm sure she has a very persuasive interpretation.
Um. He's a rather famous libertarian, I believe.
...which means "liberal" on all social questions. He was also slow as syrup to cut interest rates during the Bush recession.
Plus, he's married to Liberal Shrew Andrea Mitchell.
recession n 1: a widespread decline in the GDP and employment and trade lasting from six months to a year
Of course, it's not a "rigid" technical definition and therefore most likely unacceptable, right Ace?
For what it is worth.
"Libertarians" are really just liberals, Cal, with a few goofball notions about private lighthouses and gay marriage.
Bill Maher is the stereotypical "libertarian" -- a dyed-in-the-wool liberal who doesn't want to admit it to himself, and so he claims he's a "libertarian" merely because he says some nasty things about women and retarded children.
Jesus. Liberals can't read.
I'm saying that "rigid techncal definitions" are bogus, not that they're "acceptable."
If you want to quibble about the definition of recession, talk to Greenspan. He's the guy who said there's no rigid bromide to define it. It's a slowdown, pure and simple, worse than mere flatness.
Because Democrats will use every bit of propaganda in their arsenal to make sure.
On Maher:
I should note the irony that he calls his show "Politically Incorrect."
Has the man said anything in fifteen years that wasn't by-the-book liberal/leftist doctrine?
Hollywood, and liberals, love to agree with each other's doctrinaire dogma, then congratulate one another for being so "brave."
It's brave to say you're in favor of abortion or sexual freedom or against icky guns?
How can fifty million sheep bleating in unison be "brave"?
However, it would be a distortion of reality to infer that our new president has the Fed chairman in his pocket. C'mon, pull the other one...
The technical definition is two quarters of negative growth.
The why'd you post the nonsense in Message # 5055
Yesterday on the Christopher Lyden show, John Fund was whining about the mistreatment by the Dems of Ashcroft, crying dirty politics, as if the "dirty" politics were unrelated to Bush's "dirty" nominee. Wonder why all the others are being approved almost by acclamation (except for Norton). It's only logical that Ashcroft and Bush should look in the mirror to find whom to blame for the growing opposition.
LOL!
What do you want her to do? Drop NBC and join Faux News?
It's funny to me that all this outcry over Hillary being indebted to the donors of the gifts is going on...I didn't see anyone hollering that GW would "owe" those $100,000 donors to his inauguration festivities.
So writes a "male" who can't produce his own children, and the authorities won't allow him to adopt them.
So will you support me in urging the Senate to increase the gift limit to, say, $100,000 per gift?
But I agree with your point - I wonder if there is a better way to fund inaugurations?
Greenspan was an Ayn Rand protege, which is a lot more than just a wannabe libertarian. Also, if this forum is any basis for judging, libertarians are more likely to tilt right than left--although there's no reason why they can't tilt left. 
"A lie is a thing of beauty. To be convincing, it must be bold; but, once exposed as a deliberate falsehood, it enters the realm of the sublime. Who can avert his eye from Bill Clinton wagging his index finger and saying, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," or John Ashcroft testifying to the Senate that "I have never used sexual orientation as a matter of qualification or disqualification in my offices"? These moments derive their power from our knowledge that the speaker is knowingly telling an untruth.
When the lie is told with seeming conviction, the teller emerges as a Byronic hero, altering by sheer force of will the map of truth. When the lie is told in a shifty-eyed way, the teller is rendered compellingly human--tragically, perhaps fatally diminished. Either way, the result is art. "
God. It's no wonder no one's reading that e-magazine anymore.
A blast from the past. Note the date:
7558. jonesatlaw - 11/8/00 7:44:04 AM [Election Night]
While a Bish victory seems all but certain, look for further twists to this potboiler of an election. Recounts are possible, and changes to the totals not impossible, even if improbable.
Jonesey with the prescient (if understated) call...
Hee, hee. What a fuckin' night:
7563. AceofSpades - 11/8/00 7:50:32 AM
Joezan:
That was fucking unbelievable!!!
My girlfriend asked me at around 8:00, "Why are they calling Florida for Gore if Bush has more actual votes?"
"There, there," I told her, with great sophistication, "Raw numbers don't matter. They can project the winners accurately."
"But Bush has more votes," she countered.
"Don't be a silly-head," I said, dripping political acumen. "Raw votes don't matter. The projections are COMPUTER-TABULATED. They're accurate."
"Oh," she said. And then we both were sad.
And then, an hour later, we see Bush telling reporters that Florida is still in play... and then all the networds put Florida back into the toss-up column.
And during this time, I told her: "Don't get optimistic. It's only in the toss-up column for *now.* Those projections were probably accurate, and Gore will almost certainly take Florida."
And now...
and now...
and now...
BUSH WINS!!!
7579. robertjayb -11/8/00 8:27:58 AM
.
Dammit, the repubs ran a brilliant campaign. No deviation. None.
Dubbya's so fuckin'dull, I'm sure we'd all like to relive those thrilling days of Monicamania and Impeachment-o-Rama. Right folks?
One must be careful in reading Jexster.
Did I say that? Let me begin again.
You shouldn't read Jexster at all; he's an imbecile. But when reading his cut-and-paste jobs, you must be careful. One, he often gives articles a completely bogus title; for example, he'll call an article noting Greenspan's endorsement of a tax cut something like "Da Moron wrong on Taxes... again." You wonder if he even read the article.
The other thing he does is edit ver-r-r-r-y carefully, to make an article say something it does not, or to quote just the "helpful" parts of an article while carefully keeping mum about the damning parts.
Case in point?
Check out Jexster's cut-and-paste from Slate above. He quotes Slate, liberal hack-zine elite, making some nasty comment about Ashcroft's alleged lies. Fair enough.
But you would never guess from Jex's selective quotation what all that is really a preamble to.
And what IS Jexster's Slate article about?
Well, it's called "Whopper of the Week," and it's about the week's worst, most revolting lie.
So what was the Whopper of the Week? The Ashcroft matter, which gay journalists everywhere are so angry about, wondering "Where's the Outrage?" (Note to Gay Journalists: I've wondered "Where's the Outrage?" for four and a half years. Your check is in the mail.)
No, it's not Ashcroft's alleged lie.
Well, who's lie then?
Well, Denise Rich's... the woman who gave Clinton $1 million to grant her husband a pardon:
To emphasize this last point, Chatterbox, a known Democrat, kicks off "Whopper of the Week" with a Democrat's lie: Clinton fund-raiser Denise Rich's denial, through a spokesman, that she had anything to do with Bill Clinton's last-minute pardon of her ex-husband, the fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich.
"Denise was totally taken by surprise. It's not something she really wanted. It's not something she would have used her clout for."
--Denise Rich's publicist, Bobby Zarem, as reported in the Jan. 23 New York Daily News.
"Exile for 17 years is enough. Marc has made the lives of countless others better."
--Dec. 6 letter from Denise Rich to Bill Clinton, as quoted in the Jan. 23 New York Times.
Odd that Jexster didn't quote the most relevant part of the article to us. Isn't it?
Disgusting:
5161. janjon - 1/26/01 9:29:10 PM
Andy scores on yet another fundamental truth. It will be a recession and hard times when people feel it. If it happens (and gee I sure hope W's handlers will do something to try to make sure it doesn't!), it will be under W's watch.
Live with it.
The admission that yes, this is Clinton's recession, but yes, we will lie and blame it on Bush.
We've always known it... just happy to get confirmation, Jan. "Truth" to you people is like kryptonite.
A review of computerized records for 2.7 million votes in eight of Florida's largest counties offers new details of how voters erred. It reveals that, while both Vice President Gore and George W. Bush each may have lost votes that were intended for them, Democratic voters were significantly more likely to have invalidated their ballots than Republican voters.
According to the Post's analysis, the biggest problem for Gore was in "overvotes," ballots invalidated because voters indicated multiple choices for president. Although the number of ballots thrown out for that reason was known shortly after the Nov. 7 election, The Post analysis for the first time shows the voting patterns contained in those ballots. Gore was by far most likely to be selected on invalid overvoted ballots, with his name punched as one of the choices on 46,000 of them. Bush, by comparison, was punched on 17,000.
Democratic votes also appear to have been disproportionately affected because of Palm Beach County's infamous "butterfly ballot." The study found that the 8,000 voters whose ballots were thrown out because they chose Gore and one of the two other presidential candidates listed near him voted more than 10 to 1 Democratic in the U.S. Senate race.
Yawn.
Numerous ballots contained two, three, or four votes. It's silly to call those "Gore votes," merely because Gore was one of the chosen candidates.
As far as PBC voiding: Many "voided" ballots were immediately replaced by a fresh new ballot and re-voted. As these were all by and large placed in the same "void" piles, you haven't a clue as to how many of those 8,000 went on to successfully vote for Bush.
In any event, the election's over.
And who were the "two other presidential candidates listed near him?"
The article doesn't say. But I've seen the ballot.
The two candidates listed next to Gore were: Pat Buchanan...
...and George W. Bush of Texas.
Funny. The people voted for Gore and "one of the two candidates listed near him," one of which was GW Bush. So whose votes were these?
Why, obviously-- they were Gore's.
In almost every county, the pairing of Gore with each of the more obscure candidates garnered more votes than the lesser-known candidate got alone. In the most prevalent combination, more than 6,800 voters punched holes for both Gore and Libertarian Harry Browne. Browne's name appeared right after Gore on the ballots in seven of the counties.
The next most common choice was Gore and Reform Party nominee Patrick J. Buchanan, with 6,300 ballots. That combination was most prevalent in Palm Beach County, where the butterfly ballot positioned Gore's spot between Buchanan and Socialist David McReynolds.
The Palm Beach County voters who punched either Gore-Buchanan or Gore-McReynolds voted overwhelmingly Democratic in the U.S. Senate race, favoring Bill Nelson over Republican Bill McCollum, 6,645 to 632.
Stop the presses, boys. We've got us a scoop.
Actually, I suspect that both Republicans and Dems rely heavily on votes from the ignorant. But ignorant Republicans are more likely to know how to vote--and, since they're more likely to be white, feel more entitled to vote and entitled to demand their rights. (This is not a slam, it's a good thing.)
That said, there's no question that the problem is that Dem voters fuck up. The thing is, that's fixable. And in 2004, those ignorant voters are going to be a lot more aware of their rights, what can and can't be expected of them, and how to vote.
However, in general, it just reinforces the fact that, were it not for hideously bad luck, Gore would have won and it wouldn't even have been close.
"However, in general, it just reinforces the fact that, were it not for hideously bad luck, Gore would have won and it wouldn't even have been close."
Except for the 40,000 Republican panhandle voters who didn't vote because the state had been "called," and except for the 10,000 felons and illegal aliens who voted, and except for the fact that we don't count the votes of retards who believe you can select two, three, or even four or five Presidents.
A bunch of stupid liberals believe Presidential voting is a "Top Five" affair, as in, "And my Top Five Candidates for President are (drum roll)..."
As Stumbo said (funny!):
Stop the presses, boys. We got ourselves a scoop.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Another point:
This is not "bad luck." This has been the case for 100 years. Idiots vote in elections, and we don't count those votes.
There are more Democratic idiots than Republican, so more Democratic idiot votes are never counted. Further, when you have a massive GOTV effort and drag illegal, non-English-speaking Haitians to the polls and force them to vote, you can't expect them to be particularly enthused about it, or adroit with the stylus. Nor can you expect the crack addicts you bribed to the polls with packs of Marlboros to punch a perfect ballot.
"Hiddeously bad luck" suggests an abberration of chance. There was no abberration of chance. This happens every year, and will continue happening every year, every single year the Democrats attempt to win an election with crack addicts, Alzheimer's shut-ins, illegal immigrants, and the typical gang of Democratic cretins.
Oh, we count the votes of retards all the time. We just don't count the votes of people who screw up.
You're not getting anywhere with the 40,000 in the Panhandle, since stats show over and over that calling elections early don't make that much (if any) difference, and the 10,000 felons (assuming it's true) were more than cancelled out by all the black people drummed off the voting rolls because they might be felons.
It's nothing to get upset about on either side. It's just gonna be fun. It will further serve to stiffen the spines of Dems, Bush will be less and less likely to use the words, "The people voted for my platform", and 2004 will probably demonstrate that a lot of morons learned how to vote. All in all, not a bad thing.
Oh, sure there was. The Duval county and PBC ballots were aberrations. But in general, I think that a high error rate that has been taken for granted will now be examined. Another way in which this was a good thing.
Also, it's a good thing because at this point, it's pretty clear that Gore won by half a million votes and only lost Florida through bad luck and a disproportionate allocation of crappy votes. So Gore isn't ruined like it was first expected he'd be.
"You're not getting anywhere with the 40,000 in the Panhandle,"
*NONSENSE.* Polls have shown a difference. A specific poll on THIS SITUATION came up with the 40,000 number. That's not perfect evidence, but it's more evidence than your typical "I don't want to believe it, so I don't" attitude.
Such nonsense! It is your claim that the slightest bit of inconvenience discourages poor minorities from the polls... but you simultaneously claim you can tell three million people that the election is OVER and that won't affect voter turnout in the least!
I say again: BULL SHIT. Florida had one the HIGHEST turnouts in the country; New York had a comparitively low turnout. What accounts for this? Simple! Florida was a swing state; NY was not. A vote "counted" in Florida; it barely counted in NY. The importance of the vote turned Florida voters out in recent record numbers.
But you claim that that the news that the election was over did NOTHING to dissuade an entire corner of the state from voting? Ludicrous.
"since stats show over and over that calling elections early don't make that much (if any) difference,"
Well, a poll did. Further, "stats" (such as a record high turnout in vigorously contested Florida) shows that people will go to the polls in greater numbers... IF they believe their vote is important.
When you tell them the election is over, that higher-than-normal urge to vote disappears.
"and the 10,000 felons (assuming it's true) were more than cancelled out by all the black people drummed off"
Hah, hah, hah! There have been, what, 100 people wrongly crossed off the list?
And, by the way, if I understand it right (and I think I do), all those people could vote at the polls, Cal. They just had to vote by affidavit, affirming they actually *were* entitled to vote.
You've tallied up 30,000 net Gore "votes" (multiple punches for multiple candidates)... and that's become "a half a million votes"?
Barbie says: "Math is hard."
Cal,
Please explain why Florida's turnout was so high, if not for the fact that "every vote mattered."
Now compare to a state where every vote didn't "matter."
Would Florida's turnout have been so high if the state was a "lock"? No-- "lock" states have the poorest turnout.
So, if a "lock" state has a poor turnout, what about a state where no further votes will *literally* count at all, because the election is over?
Please explain. I'm soooooo curious.
Let's say the polls close at 8:00. I'm late. I can't make it in time.
Do I go to the polls anyway, just to make a "showing" as citizenship demands, even though the polls are closed?
Answer: Of course not.
Now, if I am told by every news agency that the election is over, do I vote anyway?
Answer: Probably not, for the same reason as in the first hypothetical: It's a waste of time.
You will claim there are "other races" which were still going on... trouble is, Nelson was declared the winner of the Senate race at the same time as Gore.
So, you are claiming that people will be JUST AS LIKELY to vote for minor offices -- Representative, sherrif, dog-catcher -- as for President in a swing state? Fucking puh-leeze. If that's true, why are Presidential years always high-turnout compared to the very low turnout non-Presidential midterm elections?
Why is that, Cal? Hmmmmmm... I wonder.
Could it be that:
Presidential races are the most important, and the most likely to animate an irregular voter to the polls;
that Presidential races in swing states are even MORE important, and drive an even higher turnout; and finally
that therefore, an election in which there is either no Presidential choice, or the Presidential choice has already been determined, will have a lower turnout?
If my logic is confusing, just let me know. I'll break it up into tinier pieces.
?????
I don't recall making the first claim. The second is not a "claim". A poll isn't evidence. The issue of outcomes being affected or votes lost due to results being announced early has been studied extensively since 1980 and it has been demonstrated consistently that it doesn't make any difference. It was much mentioned back in November and December.
! There have been, what, 100 people wrongly crossed off the list?
Is that all? Seriously? I have read that it was much more.
But I think you miss my point. I was saying that all of those--the supposed panhandle loss, the supposed felon vote, the people wrongly crossed off the list--are all the same sort of mighta coulda shoulda stuff. I don't weight any of them particularly heavily--along with the supposed road blocks, the additional id checks, and so on.
...as people who fuck up on ballots. The thing is, you only want to discuss the import of one sort of mighta coulda shoulda -- Dems who are Retards -- and you are immediately dismissive of any other mighta coulda shoulda which would tend to show that the bad luck was actually on Bush's side.
NO RACE in recent memory has been wrongly called like this. IT HAS NOT HAPPENED. GW Bush got the shafting from a very bad network "call" -- hmmm, go figure, the Republican got screwed.
But you want to whine endlessly about the "hiddeously bad luck" Gore had, and, because you wish to use this as a propaganda point or point of personal vindication, it requires you to claim that a network call in a Republican stronghold has NO EFFECT on voter turnout.
That's bullshit, and I suspect you know it.
Even if the effect is "very small," as you earlier admit, a "very small" suppression of Republican votes is more than enough to swing a close race like this.
I suspect that the "half a million votes" quote refers to the total popular vote, not just Florida.
But, given that everyone (except, perhaps, the same sort of people who thought they had to punch separate holes for president and vice-president) knew that what mattered was not the popular vote but the Electoral College -- and that that influenced the way the candidates campaigned, and voter turnout -- I'm surprised that anyone ever brings it up.
Cite these studies.
And explain why Florida had a high turnout, if not for its being a crucial swing state. And if it had a hight turnout because it was a crucial swing state, what happens to turnout when it is NO LONGER a crucial swing state, but a decided state?
Also, please explain if your alleged "studies" document cases in which not only the Presidential race was called, but the Senate race, leaving only minor & often uncontested candidates down-ticket.
You keep avoiding these questions.
Is it really your claim that a Panhandle voter would be just as liable to go to the polls to elect his sherrif as he would if the Presidency were on the line?
No, that's not the same at all. Why? Because these are people who made it to the polls. They voted. And they fucked up. Due, no doubt, to the fact that they're idiots. But the analysis of actual attempted votes is far more meaningful than analysis of reasons why people might not have voted, if they didn't care enough or didn't understand how things worked.
Also, I find it odd that you say that I'm whining. I'm not whining at all. I think the whole thing is pretty cool. Sure, I'd rather Gore won. But given that he didn't win, it's as good as it can get. That's what I enjoy about it.
So what?
"They voted."
Technically, they didn't. They INTENDED to vote, but they didn't. What they did was spoil a ballot.
And 40,000 net Republicans INTENDED to vote for Bush, but they didn't, because the Tom, Dan & Peter show told them the election was ALREADY OVER.
Cal, I will ask these questions one more time. If you do not respond to them THIS TIME, my side of this conversation is over. I have no time for a nitwit who picks and chooses which points she is capable of answering.
If you must concede my points, then be honest and DO SO, rather than simply pretending you didn't read them.
Here are the questions:
"And explain why Florida had a high turnout, if not for its being a crucial swing state. And if it had a hight turnout because it was a crucial swing state, what happens to turnout when it is NO LONGER a crucial swing state, but a decided state?
Also, please explain if your alleged "studies" document cases in which not only the Presidential race was called, but the Senate race, leaving only minor & often uncontested candidates down-ticket."
Rebut, refute, or concede, but answer.
If you don't, I am out of here.
"Because these are people who made it to the polls."
Are you suggesting we give credit for physical presence without mental functioning?
The facts:
The Panhandle is a Republican stronghold. One Representative for the Panhandle is Joe Scarborough, who is popular and was either completely uncontested, or not seriously contested. Certainly his seat was rated either "safe" or "lock."
Being a Republican stronghold, most, if not all, the other Representatives would have been in a similar position. Tallahassee's Rep might have been Dem.... but then, he was safe too.
Some judges were up for retention. Judges usually get 70-90% positive votes. Thus, noncompetitive.
Now, let's add this up:
-- The Presidential race has been called for Gore
-- the Senate race has been called for Nelson
-- Most, if not all, representative races are uncontested or blowouts
-- the judge retention election is a blowout, as it is every year
So.
Cal, you're claiming that Panhandle Republican, informed that Gore and Nelson had won, would bother voting?
Might I ask: What precisely would they be voting *for*? Which races? What races were "live" and contested?
The "half a million votes" was nationally, as Stumbo points out.
As for the studies--eh. You can buy it or not. I'll look them up later. It was regularly and repeatedly acknowledged in practically ever discussion or analysis piece on the panhandle issue during those two months because, as I said, it has been well-studied since Carter's loss.
Now, you are welcome to argue that all of these studies don't count, that the Panhandle is different. Which is no doubt what you'll do when I provide the links. So why not just say it now, and save us both the time?
You keep avoiding these questions.
"Keep"? My lord, Ace, you post three times to my one.
I neither understand nor give a damn about your question about turnout. As to your question about impact when early results are announced, my answer is that the studies regularly show this and that yes, it seems counterintuitive to me, too. But that is what they say consistently, and those studies are more meaningful than your poll of outraged voters.
That said, it may indeed turn out that the early polls mattered in the Panhandle--that this, alone among all situations, had an impact on the results. Fine. That, alas, would just mean that the voters in the Panhandle are like the people who were turned off by roadblocks--the uncommitted, the folks who didn't get to the polls.
So let's keep the two things straight: the analysis of actual voting efforts by people who made it to the polls is quite different from a recitation of things that stopped uncommitted people from getting to the polls.
I am merely pointing out that your claim that the early call made a difference is not supported by studies. But even if it did make a difference, it would only elevate the claim to the equivalent of the people who were dissuaded by roadblocks, additional id checks, and being wiped off the rolls as assumed felons.
Whatever, Cal.
You have "studies" which show that people will vote, even when they're told the Presidential, Senate, Congressional, and judicial retention races have all been decided.
What are they voting for? Who knows. But Cal says they're just as pumped up to vote as voters in a live, swing-state Presidential race.
They love voting for Sheriff in Florida, I guess.
"The race has been called" might or might not dissuade me from voting (since that would depend on my trust in the networks' ability to correctly make a snap judgement on statistical matters). "The polls are closed" definitely would (since that would depend on my trust in their ability to correctly state verifiable facts).
Now, I definitely recall it being mentioned on various TV shows that the networks' policy was to not call any race until the polls in that state were closed.
So, if the networks said, "The polls are closed in state X [as they presumably believed them to be, in Florida], and we project A as the winner," surely I wouldn't try to go vote.
But if they merely said "We project A as the winner," I wouldn't, either -- being aware of the above-mentioned policy, and assuming that it would be correctly executed.
Not even if I really, really cared about the local dog-catcher race.
And 40,000 net Republicans INTENDED to vote for Bush, but they didn't, because the Tom, Dan & Peter show told them the election was ALREADY OVER.
These aren't the same thing. Getting to the polls and not getting to the polls are different. You can measure one.
But anyway, why are you doing this? There's no dispute that most "expert analysts" at this point in time think more people left their house intending to vote for Gore. If the weight of evidence starts tilting towards a clear win for Bush, I'll be the first to acknowledge it.
I'm certainly not arguing that some travesty of justice has occurred, nor am I whining. I'm just enjoying the fact that more data has been uncovered to further cast clouds on Bush's presidency.
Now--let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that everything you say is correct and everything I say is wrong. That despite the analysis, the vote still would have been close or Bush would have won if the panhandle hadn't been called, the felons hadn't voted, and so on.
But that doesn't matter. Why? Because the perception is what matters, and at this point, the media coverage focuses on counting what can be counted, which is the people who went to the polls and tried to vote. All the data coming in supports the perception that, with a little less crappy luck, Gore would have won handily.
So. Even if everything you say is true (and it isn't, but no matter), I'm just enjoying the fact that the little frat boy has to endure further aspersions on his victory.
Whatever your particular determination to vote, people vary in voter-determination.
Some people will vote, no matter what.
Some people will probably vote, especially if it's close.
Some people will only vote if it's close.
Some people will only vote if it's close and if a party precinct captain drags them to the polls.
Some people won't vote.
It's just stupid to claim that a call for both President and Senator (with all other races either uncontested, niggling, or both) is not going to make a significant fraction of voters decide to WATCH the election returns rather than actually voting.
It's so pig-ignorant.
Truth be told? I didn't vote... AGAIN. I didn't vote in 1996 because New Jersey was a lock for Clinton, and I wasn't even too animated about Dole. This time around, it was inconvenient-- PLUS, of course, NY was a lock for Gore, and Lazio was toast. (Nadler, in my neighborhood, was also an unconstested lock.)
So please don't tell me that it makes no difference if a voter believes an election is actually contested or not. I voted in 1988 when it was contested. I voted in 1992 when it was contested. I did not vote in 1996 or 2000, when no race was contested.
Pure bullshit. I know damn well voters stay home when an election is a lock, or if the race has already been decided. Because I'm one of those voters who do so.
Yawn.
1) Perception is all that matters to you people;
2) The media wants to promote just this perception, just as they wanted to promote the idea that tax cuts were "dangerous," and have only grudgingly reported that Greenspan has put the lie to their year-long drumbeat against tax cuts
3) The media has a vested interest in claiming that their blunder didn't actually affect things.
I'm still stunned that "studies" prove my voting patterns aren't affected by knowing an election is a lock/already over...
Hmmmm... I DID vote in all elections with an important contested race, and I DID NOT vote in any elections where all important races were locks...
But funny-- Cal's studies claim that I actually DID vote in all these elections.
That's odd. I don't remember voting in 1996 or 2000. I do remember voting in 1988, 1992, 1994, and 1998.
This is very, very strange. Oh well-- if Cal's studies say I voted in every election, so be it!
"I definitely recall it being mentioned on various TV shows prior to this election that the networks' policy was..." etc.
Yes, Stumbo, they did ALL say that.
Only later did they note that they'd actually called Florida a half-hour before the panhandle polls closed.
Eh, what does it matter? Cal's studies say we all voted anyway.
I wonder if Cal's studies can tell me whom I voted for... because I sure don't remember.
Was "Frasier" running for office? Because I seem to remember "Frasier" that night. Maybe I voted for Frasier. Or Niles.
People living in the Panhandle, and well aware of being an hour behind the rest of the state (and of the sort of mix-ups this may cause), might have had better reasons to distrust the networks' ability to ascertain whether the polls had indeed closed everywhere in the state.
But that's kinda reaching. Time zones aren't exactly kept secret, so one would've expected those bastions of information-gathering to be aware of them.
1) Well, of course. Perception is everything.
2) It's a conspiracy!
3) Eh. I doubt it. They've been wearing sackcloth and ashes for months on that blunder.
It's now up to FORTY THOUSAND Panhandle Republicans who decided not to vote in the ELEVEN MINUTES between the networks' announcement of a Gore victory and the closing of the polls?
Ha! That statement is full of shit, even by your "standards".
(UPI) A legal watchdog group has filed a complaint against Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) with the Senate Ethics Committee, alleging that the former first lady and junior senator and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, may have illegally accepted more than $190,000 worth of personal gifts.
Upon leaving the White House after President George W. Bush's Jan 20 inauguration, the Clintons filed financial disclosure statements listing "gifts, china and furniture that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will benefit from and enjoy for her personal use," said a statement detailing the complaint, released yesterday by the Washington, DC-based Judicial Watch.
"Senate rules, standards of conduct and federal law all have strict provisions concerning the illegal or improper solicitation and acceptance of gifts," the statement said, urging the "Senate Ethics Committee to investigate Sen. Clinton's conduct and arrive at an appropriate remedy."
"Sen. Clinton's acceptance of these gifts goes beyond crass," commented Jusicial Watch president and chief counsel, Larry Klayman.
Senator Clinton has refused to comment on the gifts.
"Sen. Clinton's acceptance of these gifts goes beyond crass," commented Jusicial Watch president and chief counsel, Larry Klayman.
This man will go to his grave with a form for a lawsuit against the Clintons clutched firmly in his hand. I expect him to sue Chelsea any day now.
Jusicial Watch
This misspelling was from Rosettas link, by the way.
Don't you understand time zones, Ohio? The western panhandle of Florida is in a different one from the east. Polls closed at 8 PM est.
Why don't you go back to TT, judithesnitch? Cazart is looking for dainformer.
Why don't you go to Aruba, pastyface?
I'm not bothering you anymore, RS...please do the same.
The networks projected Gore the winner at 7:49 PM EST, some time after the polls in eastern Florida closed (7 PM EST time), but before the polls closed in Western Florida (7 PM CST, 8 PM EST). Eleven minutes before, not 1 hour and 11 minutes.
Obviously, for the networks to "call" Florida 1 hour and 11 minutes before the polls in western Florida closed, they would have had to "call" it before ANY polls in Florida closed, which of course they did not do.
You really are stupid. I'm refraining from calling you shit-for-brains, because then I'd owe shit an apology.
I just heard GWs radio address...his recycled campaign sound bites, rather, and I want to know what we're going to do with all the public schools which are considered failing and which, according to him, "can not or will not change". are we going to shut the doors on these schools? Because if students leave and take their money with them, how are those schools supposed to change?
If half my yard is dying because it doesn't get enough water, I don't take what little water that part gets and transfer it to the side of the yard that is already getting enough, do I?
Sounds like a plan to me...according to the Republicans, that's where they belong, anyhow.
Ace- if you are ever informed that you are a father, ask for the genetic test. It would probably save you some money, because if you truly believe 40,000 Bush voters didn't go to the polls because of the call 11 minutes before the polls closed, your girlfriend could be doing your grandfather and you'd never catch on.
"What's going on here!!!???"
Girlfriend: "Oh honey, I was helping your grandfather with his zipper, when his penis fell out of his fly. Since my hands were full with his zipper, I held it in my mouth until I could fix things."
Ace: "Oh, that's okay then."
Great post, Jones....
I just saw on CNN that the Bush White House is refusing to let any reporters SEE any of the alleged vandalisn done by the Clinton evictees. This sounds like the old "dirty tricks" scenario to me...put a bunch of garbage out there and let it be spread by people who need no proof; then, when proof is asked for, say "We just want to put it all behind us" with that sanctamonious siff.
The Clinton people are asking to see proof; the media is asking to see proof; the only people out there not asking for proof are the people who can prove it.
This wouldn't be the first time Rove and Co. had floated things that weren't exactly the whole truth. Maybe it was payback for the fact Clinton got as much appaulse as Bush at Bushs own inauguration.
siff=sNiff
Here is the CNN story:
Much Ado About Little
-- President Clinton's chief of staff called the Bush administration Friday afternoon to inquire about reports of last-minute vandalism in the West Wing and in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building by former Clinton-Gore staffers, a senior Bush official told CNN.
Clinton aide Karen Tramontano called Andrew Card, President Bush's chief of staff, said Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer.
Card's deputy, Joseph Hagin, called Tramontano back Friday, and described to her "plural incidents," Fleischer said. The Bush spokesman would not describe those incidents to reporters.
A senior Bush aide, who did not want to be identified, said that the incidents occurred mostly in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, but that some also took place in the West Wing.
Hagin also told Tramontano the story surrounding the so-called pranks had become "bigger than life," Fleischer added.
And, here's the latest from Clinton's people....
AIR FORCE ONE ITEMS PUT ON SALE OVER WEB-head
Appear on Ebay after reported thefts--sub
The appearance of dozens of articles emblazoned with the Air Force One log on a popular internet site is raising questions about their orgin in the wake of the theft of items from the presidential plane.
More than 30 presidential collectibles were listed as of last night for sale on the internet auction site Ebay.
toycheck
Which is more important, the school or the children? If a school is failing the children and can not or will not change, what should we do? Should we let it continue to fail our children or should we give those children other options. The schools exist to serve our children, not the other way around.
Because if students leave and take their money with them, how are those schools supposed to change?
Once again, where is your focus? Is your focus on the schools or the children? If a school cannot provide an adequate education it should be closed and another school opened which can. It cruel to condemn a child to a life of poverty in order to protect a bureaucracy.
If half my yard is dying because it doesn't get enough water, I don't take what little water that part gets and transfer it to the side of the yard that is already getting enough, do I?
What happens if the yard keeps dying in spite of three years worth of effort? Do just keep pouring more and more water on it, or do you tear it out and start over? Do you think money is universal cure for every educational ill we have?
Billions of dollars set for religious groups...The Houston Chronicle...(registration required)
WASHINGTON -- President Bush, keeping a campaign pledge to rally "the armies of compassion," will announce plans next week to funnel billions of federal tax dollars to religious groups providing social services like housing, job-training and drug and prison rehabilitation.
The president has yet to release details on his proposed White House "Office of Faith-Based Action." Although aides estimate the office will administer about $8 billion in grants and tax breaks over the next decade, they have not specified where the money would come from.
Should Michael Kinsley have to pay for candles and incense?
...official promotion of religion—even when it's not specific—can reach a point where it infringes on the rights of nonbelievers. President Bush has cut off family planning funds for international organizations that finance abortions on the grounds that money given for one thing frees up money for the other. But he does not apply the same logic to his plans to subsidize church-based education. If a birth-control grant to some agency amounts to taxpayers funding abortions, why isn't a grant to a church school essentially forcing me to pay for candles and incense? (excerpted from Slate)
Only one week out of the office, Bubba ia already lonely, bored and misses the attention that his aides (especially females) were paid to give him. Even the Secret Service is treating him with professional contempt. Luckily the dog is still interested in his insights.
He doesn't have the discipline to stay quiet for long. Expect trouble with a capital T.
-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer on allegations of mischief by outgoing White House staff, such as missing "W" keys on all the computer keyboards.
... Or people who listened to the radio while driving to their polling station (on their way back from work, perhaps), and who -- see #5250 -- not-unreasonably interpreted the fact that the race had been called as an indication that the polls were already closed.
I have no idea how many people would fit this scenario -- but, surely, more than the one you posit.
I'd like to sell you a mounted Jackalope, a catfish stole, a deep water port on the Platte River, and a couple of quarterhorse eggs, if you buy the GOP line.
Please explain why there are always so many people at the post office on April 15.
Here's a possibility-- because people tend to wait for the deadline.
You are claiming that "no one" votes in the last half hour. That's absurd. The last half hour is almost certainly a period of peak activity. The biggest voting times are almost certainly, in order: Lunch break, 5-6 pm, just when the polls open, and just when the polls close.
There are sworn affidavits regarding lines in the polling places at this time. (Remember St. Louis, with hundreds of people lined up at the time the polls were closing?) And these affidavits say that news of the election call were relayed, and many, if not most, people went home.
How significant was the vote suppression? Not terribly significant-- in terms of the number of people who voted. But in an election determined by an excruciatingly close margin, 40,000 (or, let's knock that number down, 5,000) discouraged voters is a landslide.
You dipshits are getting all giddy when a newspaper "discovers" 200 votes for Gore... and yet you are incapable of being honest and admitting that many thousands, if not several tens of thousands, of people would go home or stay home once ALL RACES had been called.
A "huge number" of people is hardly required.
BTW Jones, I live just three blocks from my polling place. It's a four minute walk.
When I was in surburbia, I lived a scant 10 minute car jaunt away.
If the "no one" is voting in the last half hour of polling, why not just shut them down a half hour earlier?
Polling places tend to be located in the nearest school or fire-house... which tend to be very close to the community they serve.
Jones apparently lives in some part of the country where he has to drive a half hour to vote.
Be that as it may, most people vote where their little ones go to school. And that's pretty damn close. Closer than the 7-11, closer than the supermarket.
"... a huge number of people cruising around in their cars two hours after work is out thinking 'maybe I'll go vote, ah shucks, Tom Brokaw predicts Gore wins I guess I'll go get a beer, and not vote at all.'"
No. It's "ah shucks, Tom Brokaw predicts Gore wins so the polls must be CLOSED, so I CAN'T vote." (I've already made this point twice. Do I have to put it in all caps to get your attention?)
And, BTW, many people don't get out of work until 6 or later.
In addition, Jones makes all this sound *unlikely*.
He doubts that many people were driving to the polls at the last minute. Perhaps he's forgotten about the hundreds (thousands?) of people lined up in St Louis at the last minute, or even lining up after the polls were closed.
Is Jones saying that only black people procrastinate and get a late start? Gee, that sounds mildly racist. CPT and all that.
Next, Jones states it's extraordinarily unlikely that someone driving a car would listen to the RADIO.
What do you think people do in their cars while driving --read Dostoyevski? No, they immediately put on the radio. And news-stations are always either the #1 or #2 ranked station in any market. Furthermore, even non-news stations will break in with particularly big news.
So, yes, everyone in a car on their way to the polls will 1) have the radio on and 2) hear about the projection the moment it's made.
Further, anyone in line at the polling station will hear the news immediately.
When people were doing the brief statewide recount in Florida, they were informed, word of mouth, of the US Supreme Court's stay of the recount within moments of the order coming down. And yet-- not a television or radio in sight.
How did they hear about this news?
Well, gee, it's a real mystery.
Especially amongst voters. Sure, Howard Stern and Modern Rock stations have their devotees... among listeners 18-34.
All older demographics -- all people most likely to vote -- favor news. Or the NPR simulation thereof.
Next question: 7 p.m. est is very, very early for stations to stop people from voting. Especially since most people work until 6 p.m. Why so early?
On Tuesday, I sent to Congress a package of reforms to turn last year's pledges into this year's laws. I want to make all of our
public schools places of learning and high standards and achievement. Our country must offer every child, no matter what his or her background or accent, a fair start in life with a quality education.
I also met this week with congressional leaders in both parties, and we found a lot of agreement on the basic goals of reform. No one is content with the status quo. Most are open to new ideas. Everyone agrees at least that the problems are serious and action is urgently needed.
This city has heard so much talk over the years about education reform. So many different approaches have been tried. So many new programs have been created. But we need more than a few new programs. We need a new way of thinking. We must go back to the fundamentals of early reading and regular testing, local control, and accountability for results, clear incentives for excellence, and clear consequences for failure.
These are the elements of the plan I am proposing. Real reform starts by giving schools and school districts more authority and
flexibility. We cannot expect schools to change unless they have the freedom to change. My plan respects the principle of local
control. It does not try to run the schools from a central office in Washington. I view principals, teachers and parents as allies in
reform. They are ready to raise the standards, ready to take responsibility and answer for results.
Those results must be measured by testing every child every year, in tests developed and administered by states and local
districts, not the federal government. Without yearly testing, we do not know who is falling behind and who needs our help.
Without yearly testing, too often we don't find failure until it is too late. Testing allows us to help children early, before
frustration turns into apathy.
We need to aim high, but we also need to be realistic. Many schools, particularly those in poor neighborhoods, will need help
to meet high standards. And they will have it, including a new $5 billion initiative over five years for reading instruction. The goal
is to improve our public schools. We want them to succeed, and when they're willing to change, we'll give them the tools to do
so.
t the same time, we will not continue to pour taxpayers' money into schools that do not teach and will not change. My plan will give every failing school a fair chance to improve, but there will be a deadline, a moment of truth when parents are given better options and their children are given a way out. There are some honest differences of opinion in Congress about what form these options should take. I have my own plan which would help children in persistently failing schools to go to another public, private or charter school. Others suggest
different approaches, and I am willing to listen. But all reform must be based on a principle: Children and parents, who have had only bad choices need better choices. And it is my duty as President to help them.
In sending my plan to Congress, I ask that we act before this summer, when schools begin planning for the next school year. I hope to have the support of Republicans and Democrats alike, and I hope to have your support, as well. Thank you for listening.
While it is true there is nothing new here, what it wrong with Bush's words?
Those folks at CNN sure know their geography...
I have no idea where you live. I live in rural Louisiana.
My polling place is about 6 blocks from my home. Kindergarten children -yes 5 year olds - are bused 9 miles to school in my locale.
It makes no difference who you talk to - black or white - everyone is becoming terrificaly annoyed at the School Board. It would not surprise me that vouchers would be considered within 10 years in rural LA due to this fact.
Nearly every adult is in the same position as am I. The place where you vote is much closer to you than where your children go to school. And almost all of the polling places are in schools.
Stumbo:
Those folks at CNN sure know their geography...
...an obvious sop to African Americans.
...Afro"centrism", writ large.
By God, Stumbo - you're right!
The Mighty Larry King, Catalyst for Continental Drift...
Well, since it's kinda slow in here, I thought I'd liven things with a few Clinton/Gore quotes - just for old-times' sake:
Differences between me and President Clinton? That's a very thin file...let me pull it out here. Wait a minute...nothing seems to be in it...
-Al Gore
Machismo gracias.
-Al Gore, opening up a speech to students at a predominantly Hispanic school in New Mexico during the 1996 campaign
Bill Clinton should wake up every morning and thank the Lord for women.
-Mike McCurry, commenting on Clinton's favorability ratings amongst women voter
That Michael Jackson is unbelievable, isn't he? He's just unbelievable!
-Al Gore, at a Chicago Bulls Game in Jan. 1998
Part of growing up is learning how to control one's impulses.
-Hillary Clinton, introducing President Clinton at a gun control rally.
The President looked me in the eye and told me the same thing on several occasions. And I'm not upset. You want to know why? Because I never believed him in the first place.
-Robert Torricelli, on Clinton's denials of an affair with Monica.
I share with you the view that the urgent problems of species extinction and the conservation of biological diversity should be addressed. The first step in saving any plant or animal from extinction is to become aware of and respect the fragile ecosystems that make up our own planet.
-Al Gore, replying to a complaint from a Dallas couple that Amtrak service cuts were eliminating the "Texas Eagle", connecting Dallas to the West Coast and Chicago.
Please acknowledge (or dispute) the points in #5290.
If you can't do the latter, then that establishes that the scenario you originally pos(i)ted was crap.
You all should demand that Jim Baker spin you guys a less ridiculous lie. It's a shame how he embarrasses you.
I assume a person who had seen the gazillion network pledges to call no race before its time -- and who, though he may perhaps have thought he knew roughly when his polling place was supposed to close, nonetheless deferred to the networks' statement, because they were presumed to know what they were doing and saying.
BTW, your second paragraphs have been pretty weak, all day. Lose 'em.
There were no "sworn affidavits" about people leaving Panhandle voting lines in the last 11 minutes, just unproven anecdotes. As far as I know, no actual line-leaving voter has come forward or been identified.
Even WorldNetDaily isn't buying your tall tale! See this article.
Up early on a Sunday too, are you Ohio?
Yeah, I'm always up early. If I could sleep later, I would.
But there's always something to read in the Mote!
It's 1.20 pm here and we are just about to sit down for lunch. Have a nice day! 
You understand NOTHING about the "mainstream" media.
But then neither do J.J. or Ace.
---That's funny. Affidavits to this effect were offered to Judge N. Sanders Sauls during Al Gore's contest action.
Besides-- *We* didn't have the benefit of a telephone marketing campaign to inform our voters they'd been "disenfranchised."
Imagine all the sob stories if we'd had one.
No, just a couple of radio programs, a Republican telephone poll of 35,000 residents, one or more lawsuits by the "Committee for Honest Politics", radio ads by said committee, public claims of voter discouragement by, among others, the Senate Majority Leader.
You'd think that someone constantly tuned to the news enough to have caught news of network projections in the eleven-minute window between network announcement and close of polling would have been reached by now.
(Although in fairness, I must concede that my surfing the Internet has turned up about 3 actual voters who make plausible claims that their vote was affected by news of the network's "call". So you only have 39,997 to go.)
Cellar,
I understand the "mainstream media" (your quotes, not mine) enough to know that William Safire is not on the NYT's "editorial board," but rather an op-ed *columnists.*
People on the "editorial board" do something called "editing." They're also responsible for the unattributed opinions of the newspaper.
Ohio,
Like I said: With a telephone marketing effort, we could have flooded the hystrionic Robert Wexler's office with voters on a crying jag.
Well, DUH! And do you know how that's done? Of course not. You don't know jack shit about media. I've been a working journalist for over thirty years so shut your fucking hole!
Safire's influence at the NYT (and with the Pulitzer committee too), is spread far and wide. He scarcely needs an official title of of the sort you adore nit-picking over.
Your childish notion of two "sides" to everything (Good Conservatives vs. Evil Liberals) would be laughed at in a culture with any
intellectual backbone.
I don't he voted for Clinton in 1996.
cllrdr -
Well, it was the Left which pioneered the simlistic 'us good guys, them bad guys' zero sum approach to politics, plus the 'scorched earth' tactics used when they had the Congressional Majority and of the Clowntoon administration. What else can you call it when the WH Rapist stood on his two hind legs and talked about remembering 'right wing church burnings' that never occurred.
Riiiiiiight. That's why the actual editorial board (and the reporters who sneak their leftist opinions into straight news stories) take the 180 degree opposite position from Safire on every major issue.
His "influence" is so great that everyone there disagrees with him.
Giggle. The NYT features the likes of Collins, Dowd, Lewis, Krugman, Rich, etc. (liberals all), and one token moderate/conservative, and you claim it's the lone moderate/conservative who's "influencing."
Maybe he could "influence" them to hire a single other conseravtive. Or a single other *moderate*, even.
Despite his legendary obscurity, what Greenspan has to say is usually quite clear and intellectually coherent once translated into English. But his testimony last Thurs before the Budget Committee was evasive and often inconsistent. It was hard to avoid the impression that his intent was to give aid and comfort to the new administration while retaining plausible deniability.
True, Greeenspan explicitly rejected the admin's argument that we must immediately cut taxes to prevent a recession....Nonetheless, the headlines were all about Greenspan's endorsement of tax cuts--something the Fed chairman must have known would happen. And when you look at the tortured logic by which he arrived at that endorsement, you have to wonder whether those headlines weren't exactly what he wanted....
His argument went as follows: given its projected surpluses over the next decade, the federal govt may not only pay off its debt, but actually finding itself using surplus cash to buy private assets. This could cause problems of insulating the government's investment decisions from political pressures. So, we should "smooth the guide path" which turns out to mean that the government never does pay off its debt after all.
Now I would quarrel with those surplus projections. I would also point out that in declaring "it is far better...that the surpluses be lowerec by tax reductions than by spending increases," Mr. G was out of bounds. Since when is it the Fed's business to say that we should have a tax cut rather than, say, a new prescription drug benefit--or for that matter a missile defense system? (Neither program is factored into those surplus projections.) Mr.G himself seemed aware that he was on shaky ground, offering the very inadequate excuse that "I speak for myself and not necessarily for the Federal Reserve."
But the really strange thing about his argument was that he seemed to ignore the fact that the main reason the govt will one day become an investor is the buildup of assets in the hands of the SS and Medicare systems--and those funds MUST accumulate assets to prepare for the future demands of the baby-boom generation. Indeed, by all estimates even the huge projected surpluses of those trust funds will be inadequate to the task. "Certainly," Mr.G declared, "we should make sure that the SS surpluses are large enough to meet our lont-term needs." Well, I'm sorry, but you can't do that without allowing the Federal govt to become an investor.
So if that prospect was what was really worrying Mr. G, he should have focused on the problem of how to prevent the govt's position as an investor from being abused. And there are many ways to do that--including, by the way, realistic plans for partial privatization of SS, which (unlike the fantasy promises of the Bush campaign) would require the govt to ante up trillions of dollars to pay off existing obligations, solving the "problem" of excessive surpluses quite easily.
But Mr.G seemed determined to arrive at tax cuts as an answer...But by the same token, if the economy is strong again by the time a tax cut goes into effect, won't that tax cut do noticeable harm? Mr.G declined to answer questions along those lines.
When a man who is usually a clear thinker ties himself in intellectual knots in order to find a way to say exactly what the new president wants to hear, it's not hard to guess what's going on. But it's not a pretty sight.
Yeah, just like Clinton was a "Liberal."
Keep it up boys, keep it up.
New Product: The Bush Palm Pilot
Aren't you a bit confused? That's not at all what I was posting about.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate's Republican leader predicted Sunday that Congress will approve by July Fourth a cornerstone of President Bush's domestic agenda, his 10-year, $1.6 trillion tax cut proposal.
Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney said Bush might compromise to assure passage of his education reform package, suggesting the president might sign an education bill that did not include private-school vouchers.
Appearing on ''Fox News Sunday,'' Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said Americans ''will get every bit'' of Bush's proposed tax cut. Democrats discussed a much smaller figure.
''We have excess cash. We have a slowdown in the economy. So any immediate injection into private hands where the people can ... save it or spend it the way that it would be helpful to the economy, I think, is very positive,'' Lott said.
Bush's chief economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, said on CBS's ''Face The Nation'' that hoped a tax cut would come sometime in the second quarter.
''I think that's really when the economy is going to need it,'' he said.
Lott said Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's comments last week about a tax cut were a ''huge'' boost to Bush's plan.
''He helped immensely, because he made it clear that, while eliminating the national debt is important and that a good portion of the surplus should go to that, you could do it too quickly or you could get into a situation where it's paid off -- and then you either cut taxes at that point or you start ... investing that money, and he doesn't think that's good,'' Lott said.
The House's top Democrat, Rep. Richard Gephardt, said tax cuts on the order of $700 billion to $750 billion over 10 years were appropriate. He said Congress must be careful not to count on projections of a large federal surplus.
Why Didn't Clinton pardom him too?
Sorry! 
Is Clowntoon doing too many lines again? Or is he hitting the sauce now?
No, he has rosacea...
How do you know, JAH? Do you have access to his mysterious medical records? Actually, he probably does have acne rosacea, but abusing certain substances predisposes one to that.
Why Didn't Clinton pardom him too?"
No bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb. Wen Ho lee is out of jail because the trumped up charges that the freepers floated through Safire lackey Jeff Gerth didn't withstand legal scrutiny. He wasn't the Biggest Spy Since The Rosenbergs as Gerth -- the puppet of Freeper Terrorist Neutra Trulock -- was claiming.
But then you knew that.
But then you knew that, you lying piece of shit.
But we all knew that.
Very weak.
It's the Clinton/Gore/Richardson/Reno gangs that put Wen Ho Lee in jail.
Do you forget?
AG Ashcroft will be at least 10 times better than AG Reno.
Now, I definitely recall it being mentioned on various TV shows that the networks' policy was to not call any race until the polls in that state were closed.
Yes, I heard that.
After they blew it, I heard one network lamely claim that their policy was to wait until 75% of the polls were closed.
Surely this is too lame to take seriously.
Do you have more comments on the Wen Ho Lee case?
Media Research Center (!): ". . . in 1986, friends of the Reagans bought them a house in Bel Air."
But you err in leaping to the conclusion that the Reagans were given a house in 1986.
I freely admit that this conclusion is a reasonable interpretation of the sentence you quoted. So I am not accusing you of mistating the facts, I am accusing the author of the article of not being clear.
Please check out the quote from The Media Research Center (the same source you used):
The gossip mills were already spinning with the well-sourced word that Mrs. Reagan is unhappy about the presidential retirement home, a mansion in Bel Air, Calif., that was bought for $2.5 million by a group of the Reagans' friends to be leased to them after they leave Washington.
and The Washington Post:
In 1986, 18 friends contributed $2.5 million to buy Ronald and Nancy Reagan a retirement home in Bel Air when a house Nancy Reagan liked went on the market. The Reagans eventually bought the property.
It looks to me like some people bought a house in 1986 (because it was on the market), with the intention of leasing (not giving) it to them after the end of the term. However, the Reagans elected to purchase it, rather than lease it.
I didn't read all the links my search turned up. If it turns out the Washington Post is wrong, please provide an alternative source.
Sure.
But this all grew out of a discussion of Safire, no?
Do you want to rehash the entire fiasco?
How about re-frying the Rosenbergs?
So Reagan accepted some $100,000 in free rent and the Clintons, 12 years later, accepted some $190,000 in gifts. Oh, the horror.
The Bushes and the Clintons got an equivalent amount of gifts--and I'm reasonably sure that the Reagans got other gifts as well.
Whereas Clinton is SATAN INCANATE!
CalGal -
Wrong. Reagan may have accepted help from some of his personal friends. But, none of it was ever possibly Federal property, and he did not take any of it without at all, let alone, without authorization.
Thus, you cannot honestly equate the Reagan's actions with the WH Rapist looting the WH. What a sorry excuse for a human being Clowntoon is.
As far as PBC voiding: Many "voided" ballots were immediately replaced by a fresh new ballot and re-voted. As these were all by and large placed in the same "void" piles, you haven't a clue as to how many of those 8,000 went on to successfully vote for Bush.
This sounds like a big deal, and I hadn't seen it before. Do you recall where you read it?
BTW, I'm skeptical of the size of the estimates of those in the panhandle who claim to have failed to vote because of the networks blunder, but you've made a good case that there could be quite a few.
The issue isn't the size of the "gift". The question is whether gifts were given while, or before someone was in office.
The $190,000 is what people are fussing about, and none of that was Federal property. I think the Clintons took some $200 of towels from Air Force One--which is pretty normal.
Dusty,
The Post didn't count those votes. It assessed the machines records. Any replaced ballots wouldn't have been counted.
There was nothing unusual about the Clintons' gifts, actually. They were just their usual tacky selves about asking for them.
CalGal -
The extent to which the Clowntoons are already trying to exploit their public 'service' (I use the term facetiously) would make the most psychopathic con artist green with envy.
The Reagans simply cannot be compared to these rip-off artists wrt self-aggrandizement.
CLINTON JUST FUCKED YOU MAMA!
Good thing I didn't vote for him, then.
Clinton knows you URL, and he's found a way to slip into your computer and FUCK YOU IN THE ASS!!!
Vice President Al Gore and family had just moved out (of the Naval Observatory) and apparently someone wasn't very happy about relocating.
Someone had spray painted a big "G" on one of the bedroom walls, forcing workers to repaint before Cheney's 200 close friends arrived for the inaguaral party. The graffiti was found in the former bedroom of 18 year old Albert "I can't drive 55" Gore III, who was arrested for driving 97 in a 55 mile per hour zone earlier last year.
Poor kid. Probably had ADD and was trying to spray paint a 'C'.
I feel sorry for you pathetic bastards. What ever will you find to wax wacko about now that Bill is sittin purty in the Moron's back yard?
Its not like Dan Burton, Ace, Concerned and their ilk mattered even a little while Clinton was President...
From the marginal to the inconsquential....
And as for the G on Cheney's wall, that truly was a pathetic effort now wasn't it. The wall probably was set for painting and Cheney deserves at least peeing a G on the lawn for the November Crimes
How does Concerned feel now that Bill C is a private citizen....mmmmm......sheesh that's a toughie....
Actually, no. The issue has been the size of the gift. They were all given it slightly before they left office.
Actually, no, yourself. There may be some people fussed about Bill getting gifts after he left office. I couldn't care less.
The issue for me, and for many others, is Hillary getting gifts just as she is about to take office.
CalGal:
The Bushes and the Clintons got an equivalent amount of gifts--and I'm reasonably sure that the Reagans got other gifts as well.
Every gift the Reagans received while in the WH was either left there, or donated to the Reagan Library - with one exception. That being a trinket box of some sort given them by Queen Elizabeth, which included an inscription that the Reagans felt made it too personal an item to simply leave or display. So they bought it.
I believe there is a difference between farewell gifts and gifts made during their tenure, although I'm not sure. In any event, even if the only gift they got was a couple years free rent, that's a pretty good deal. I think, though, they got more. The Bushes got somewhere in the neighborhood of $100K--different numbers have been reported.
Cellar:
Most times I just look at posts of yours like the above, and ask myself, "jeez - is this guy an idiot or what!".
But sometimes fate leads me into the TV/Movies thread, where, immediately after reading one of your more idiotic posts here - which always include homosexual rape, for some strange reason - I happen upon one of your well-written, insightful, provocative critiques. And I am forced to remind myself that here is an educated, talented, worldly man, who offers glimpses of a world which, though it holds no particular allure for me, is at least rendered a tad more understandable.
It is at such times that my question changes to, "Does this guy have some sort of hard-on for concerned?"
(I'm a secret agent on a mission from Clinton to destroy concerned's mind.
Well, I'm sure your efforts stand just as much chance of being rewarded without resorting to the use of Bill Clinton's cock. I don't even think Bill would like concerned that way.
[Baker associate]Terwilliger favored the theory that hand-counting some ballots, but not others – with only a vague sense of which marks on a ballot might constitute a vote – was a violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. His partner, Flanigan, thought the claim was extremely weak, and the two men
tangled over it.
Carvin found he agreed with Flanigan: It was a fairly lame case. After all, Florida's law provided for election disputes to be funneled eventually into a single courtroom, where a judge could adjudicate all disputes. What could be more equal than that?
So sensitive was the question of federal intervention among conservative lawyers that when word of the plan for an equal protection claim began to drift up to Washington, angry conservatives started "telling Republican lawyers all over Washington that it was a terrible argument," as one recalled. Bush's lawyers had to call
and say cut it out, they were doing the best they could.
About 7 lawyers thought that the argument upon which the election was stolen, was compelling. The rest, agreed with the consensus of the Bush legal team - lame.
Unfortunately the 5 of 7 psychotic attorneys wore the black robes
I'm a little pissed at you for your very unfunny "joke" in the Religion thread.
Contrary to many died-in-the-wool liberals, I believe that faith-based charities do a great deal of good work; that they should do more, and that they should receive government assistance through the IR code and direct grants so long as none of the money, not one dime is used to advance their religious agendas
But that's not the heart of the Bush proposal for Bush, under the spell of his religious right wing svengali Martin Olasky, quite clearly had direct aid to programs with specific religious content.
If as it appears, Bush will scuttle the cornerstone of his faith-based rhetoric, the only significant consequence of the program he'll announce this week will be the creation of another Federal bureaucracy with little to do other than create a reason for it to exist.
A travesty.
I dunno for sometimes it seems that an exorcism is exactly what the GOP most needs, especially its so-called "religious" elements.
Anyway, I think that exorcism is a legitimate and sound religious practice properly understood. If the tag line reference to the GOP doesn't tickle your funny bone, ignore it.
The prayers in the rite are efficacious and may be used by laywomen Catholic or not.
Like it or not half the people in this country voted for Bush. Of the registered voters, how many of them are Republican? When you make offensive jokes toward that large group of people, expect some to be offended.
Why my parish ran a Saturday breakfast program for senior for ages. Catholic Charities does a tremendous job. Drug addicts who enter the Salvation Army's excellent rehab program do not hear one word of preaching or proselytyzing. The Episcopal Diocese of California runs the City's largest homeless shelter. Non-denominational christian prayer services, bible study as well as Episcopal liturgies are offered at the shelter but they are segregated and their cost entirely paid for by the Diocese.
So its possible to avoid the demons that haunt Marvin Olasky and still do a fine work
satanic powers, all infernal invaders, all wicked legions,
assemblies and sects...get thee hence Satan!
The gospel counsels of perfection find no response or understanding with the typical middle class right wing evangelical fundie because the religion does not serve God or his gospel but is rather more a sham offering an illusory very unchristian (dare we say demonic?) free market fundamentalism and religious sectarianism.
Such persons will likely be found in evangelical religious theme parks clogging their arteries with overpriced hot dogs and feeling uncommonly righteous. I find such persons will have nothing of sufferings or hardships; fleeing them like poison, and ever engaged in tirelessly seeking after, and devising further means of, his own personal comfort and ease.
To quote a noted Russian Orthodox theolgian: "The paradox of his life consists in his repudiation of tragedy; he is weighed down and darkened by his non-acceptance of the internal tragedy of life, of Golgotha; there is a relief and freedom in the acceptance of the Cross and the pain and suffering this entails. Because the bourgeois' consciousness of guilt and sin has become so weak, he is the slave of "the world," and his ideal is that of worldly power and wealth: the mystery of Golgotha is unaccpetable to him. The bourgeois spirit is nothing but the rejection of Christ; even those whose lips confess Him may be the first to crucify him anew."
Good place for an exorcism I'd say.
"But the fact remains that the value of the house he was given without having to put any money down far exceeds the amount of gifts that the Clintons were given."
Except that you conveniently forget-- the Clintons *already* received a gift down payment for their Chappaqua house from a "friend" (MacAuliff), in addition to the jewelry, furnishings, and big screen TVs Bill & Hill trucked out of the White House on their white trash pickup truck.
Giddy church members could barely contain their enthusiasm last Sunday as Pastor Deacon Fred played missionary videos showing piles of slumped dead bodies killed in a recent earthquake in India. "It is exhilarating to be able to see the Lord's wrath in action," said Pastor Deacon Fred. "The Almighty is obviously fed up with folks walking around worshiping cows instead of Jesus. Not only is He killing them crazy folks in India, he is turning all the bovines in Europe into "mad cows" to make sure the Catholics don't start worshipping at their hooves in every paddock from St. Petersburg to Lisbon! Folks, you can only mess with the Lord's patience for so long before He starts killing.
Am I kidding or am I serious?
"No one with sense thinks that they are gifts to her in her role as Senator."
What a moron. Obviously many people do think this, Cal.
Further, I will once again point out your disgusting hypocrisy:
When it comes to campaign finance, you claim that gifts of $100,000 to a POLITICAL PARTY (and not for personal use) are "corrupting."
When Senator Hillary Pardon Clinton gets $190,000 in personal gifts (plus, of course, the hundreds of thousands of soft money she received to campaign with), you claim that such a piffling sum couldn't possibly corrupt her.
Dipshit. Please explain why $100,000 is corrupting when any other senator receives it, but $190,000 can't corrupt the incorruptible (hah, hah!) Clintons.
Also, please note that whatever Reagan or Bush took in gifts, they took these gifts when they were exiting office, period, and could not, even if they wanted to, officially act to aid a contributor. ("Contributor," in Clinton jargon, is "friend," of course.)
Check out the guest list for DeLay's next PAC bash if corruption is truly your concern and not your feckless, largely inaccurate, staggeringly irrelevant, hugely hyperbolic, never ending yet never changing Clinton bashing.
And let's tackle the largest porkers slopping at the public trough...Mitch McConnell, Tom Delay, GWB while you're about your noble crusade against corruption.
EDI... Everybody Does It.
Three little words: Infinite apologism.
Ace, you really have to stop doing this. It ruins the impact of your rant.
I'm going to let you guess what is wrong with your statement. I have faith that you'll figure it out in, oh, twenty tries.
When Senator Hillary Pardon Clinton gets $190,000 in personal gifts (plus, of course, the hundreds of thousands of soft money she received to campaign with), you claim that such a piffling sum couldn't possibly corrupt her.
I made no such claim. I have no idea whether they would corrupt her or not. Read what I said again, and pay attention.
It seems unbearably nitpicky to point out that I have made no claims about the corruptibility of the Clintons one way or the other, giving you a threefer on incorrections. But there you have it.
Also, please note that whatever Reagan or Bush took in gifts, they took these gifts when they were exiting office, period, and could not, even if they wanted to, officially act to aid a contributor.
But Hillary has two roles. (and Heather has two mommies!) There is nothing illegal about accepting gifts in one role, provided there is nothing particularly unusual about the gifts--and $190K is not all that unusual, based on past gifts to the President.
Now, it may be likely that in the future that law will be changed. I think it's safe to say that the laws didn't anticipate a First Lady becoming a Senator.
What McAuliffe did was guarantee the loan, at least initially.
There is nothing illegal about accepting gifts in one role, provided there is nothing particularly unusual about the gifts--and $190K is not all that unusual, based on past gifts to the President.
Now, it may be likely that in the future that law will be changed. I think it's safe to say that the laws didn't anticipate a First Lady becoming a Senator.
Repeat after me:
NO - CONTROLLING - LEGAL - AUTORITY...
NO - CONTROLLING - LEGAL - AUTORITY...
NO - CONTROLLING - LEGAL - AUTORITY...
NO - CONTROLLING -LEGAL - AUTORITY...
NO - CONTROLLING - LEGAL - AUTORITY...
NO -CONTROLLING - LEGAL - AUTORITY...
..."Hey - if you elect me, you get two for the price of one!"
Restructuring announcement scheduled for Monday
By Jeffrey Ball
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Jan. 29 — DaimlerChrysler AG's loss-making
Chrysler unit is expected to announce Monday
that it is cutting about 25,000 jobs, or 20 percent
of its work force, and effectively shutting at least
three of its factories...
A GM parts plant 7 miles down the road from here cut 3,000 jobs last week, as did one in Grand Rapids.
Well, not quite half. There is that matter of Gore's lead in the popular vote. Now if you want to say that Bush and the Supreme Court stole the election fair and square, that's another matter.
Wasn't it more like a quarter of eligible voters?
Of course, when Clinton won in 92, the Repubs claimed that he didn't really win because he didn't get half of the popular vote -- Perot having siphoned off a bit.
But that was then and this is now.
That point cuts both ways. Only about a quarter of eligible voters voted for Gore. So three-quarters of eligible voters either support Bush, or weren't sufficiently opposed to actually take the effort to vote against him. So Bush can feel that he ran on a plan, and only a quarter of eligible voters registered some level of opposition (even if it was as pathetic as voting for Gore in exchange for a pack of butts).
Yes, I would make the same argument if Gore had won.
Message # 5386 This is the second time you've made reference to free rent. Can you explain what you are talking about?
NO - CONTROLLING - LEGAL -AUTORITY...
NO - CONTROLLING - LEGAL - AUTORITY...
NO - CONTROLLING -LEGAL - AUTORITY...
NO - CONTROLLING - LEGAL - AUTORITY...
NO -CONTROLLING - LEGAL - AUTORITY...
BOSTON -- Even some conservatives
are embarrassed now by the way
Senator John Ashcroft killed the nomination of
Ronnie White to be a federal judge. He told
his Republican colleagues that Judge White, of
the Missouri Supreme Court, had shown "a
tremendous bent toward criminal activity." It
was a baseless smear.
2 bit Character Assassin - a Truly *Little* Man
By Joel Engelhardt, Scott McCabe and Christine Stapleton, Palm Beach Post Staff Writers
Saturday, January 27, 2001
WEST PALM BEACH -- If Democrats had gotten their way and dimpled ballots in Palm Beach County had been counted as votes, Al Gore would have picked up 682 votes, which is more than President George W. Bush's 537-vote statewide margin of victory, according toThe Palm Beach Post's examination of disputed ballots.
Additionally, the analysis shows that more than two-thirds of the disputed ballots were cast on Data Punch voting machines even though those machines accounted for less than one-third of the 462,644 ballots cast in the county.
The Post also found that the precincts with the most disputed under-votes were not those with a majority of black or elderly voters. They were not particularly Democrat or Republican. But they were overwhelmingly Data Punch.
Bush v. Gore NO CONTROLLING LEGAL AUTHORITY
This is pretty lame. They weren't given to her role, they were given to her. Whether they were given to her as First Lady or as Senator they were still given to a Senator about to take office.
If there were but one or two dubious elements to Bush's ascension, a question like this would be churlish. But the dubious elements of Bush's victory are so numerous that questions regarding his legitimacy are appropriate--even urgent.
Kevin Phillips(!)
Well I have answered the call - Bastard Of The United States
But Gore was advocating a more middle-of-the-road steady as she goes course.
He was? Must have missed that. Maybe I got caught up in this lockbox rhetoric and missed his plans.
I wonder how the vote would have been affected if Bush had promised in his campaign to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I didn't see Cheney's comments, but I did hear Bush say that he no such plans.
wonkers2
Paying the President more isn't a bad idea, but I don't see why gifts to a retired President should be eliminated (unless the President or SO is continuing on in some critical office.)
Now the Republican era has been artificially restored, just as the old Democratic sway at first seemed renewed by the Watergate victory of Jimmy Carter in 1976. The denouement of defeat four years hence could also recur because the GOP of 2001 has even less mandate and considerably less legitimacy than Carter, who at least managed to win 50 percent of the popular vote.
The Democrats have good cause for optimism. If you think of the candidates as proxies for the issues they stand for, then the electorate that voted for Gore and Nader represents a loose majority opposed to Bush's incredible $1.3-trillion tax cut plan and to the GOP drive to privatize Social Security. Bush is nevertheless now pushing ahead on both. But his illegitimacy as well as lack of mandate should underscore the cavalier behavior of campaigning for such extremes. And if he tries to pack the Court with more justices like Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist, he'll be inviting his own defeat along with that of his nominees. Finally, 2001 and 2002 look like years when three related dimensions of necessary election reform--uniform national voting, campaign finance overhaul, and the elimination of the electoral college--may give the Democrats the chance to remain on the side of the angels while hammering issues that will keep the specter of Bush's various political illegitimacies dancing on the horizon.
Because of these circumstances, the election--or rather, Supreme Court selection--of a Republican president is a vulnerable anomaly.
They weren't given to her role, they were given to her.
I disagree. They were given to her role.
Basically, the data model needs updating.
The hard question is how the fact of illegimacy can be made operative politically in the illegitimate interregenum
??
Did I say anything about a mandate?
No.
But don't let mere facts get in the way of a good rant.
Did you miss Message # 5419?
Well Jen, if it offends some then so be it. Frankly WRT the large and influential cabal of fundie pietists and assorted snake handling bible thumpers who dominate that party, I was not joking.
Give me some numbers to support this “majority” you speak of. Out of curiousity, what percentage of pentecostals are snake-handlers?
Message # 5402
To expand, many right wing protestant evangelical groups have created a fetish of materialism and called it a religion.
To further expand, many groups of every domination and in every facet of our culture have created a fetish of materialism and called it a religion. Especially the Catholic Church historically.
The gospel counsels of perfection find no response or understanding with the typical middle class right wing evangelical fundie because the religion does not serve God or his gospel but is rather more a sham offering an illusory very unchristian (dare we say demonic?) free market fundamentalism and religious sectarianism.
This doesn’t even sound like you. But if you’re claiming that this is actually your thought, please tell me what a typical middle class right wing evangelical fundie is, and demonstrate how their religion does not serve God or His gospel. And Jexster, you had better support this nonsense of yours, because your credibility with me rests on this. Furthermore, when you categorize the largest denomination of Protestanism like this, not only do you look foolish, but you alienate yourself from an even larger group than you already have by falsely and ignorantly demonizing Republicans. Not bad for a day’s work, huh?
Cont.
Guess I either missed the point or there was none to begin with
But don't let mere facts get in the way of a good rant.
i agree.
where do you see one?
I disagree. They were given to her role.
Does this mean you wouldn't mind if, for example, a few wealthy businesspeople decided to send GWB a few gifts to thank him for his fine job as Governor of Texas?
What is absurd, of course, is that not even their worst enemy could really accuse the Clintons of trying to benefit from their years in public service. They've never had much money, unlike the Bushes and the Reagans. They have legal bills to pay off, which probably accounts for Hilary's otherwise tonedeaf insistence on an advance, rather than royalties.
Trashy? Sure. But in the end, I don't think they have benefited from the Presidency in any material way--certainly not much more on an amount basis than any of recent Presidents.
please take the religious discussion to the proper thread - it certainly could use the posts
Don’t be so retarded.
I find such persons will have nothing of sufferings or hardships; fleeing them like poison, and ever engaged in tirelessly seeking after, and devising further means of, his own personal comfort and ease.
More waste from you. Seeing how it is obvious that you have never 1)even known an evangelical conservative Christian 2) bothered to know how Protestants (especially evangelicalone)differ from the Catholic/Episcopalian/Anglican cult you belong to and 3) bothered with suffering or hardships yourself, the above statement from you is meaningless. Especially in the context of politics!
Tragically they want the taxpayers to build more temples for the fundies to worship that which they hold nearest and nearest...themselves
You’re truly ignorant of Protestanism, and I thought you were more intelligent than that. Jex, supposedly you’re a Christian, but I cannot recall ever coming across someone so twisted and warped regarding Protestanism. Nor have I ever met anyone so judgmental of others. You make sweeping generalizations and accusations about people based not on fact but on stupidity and mood swings.
You don't even know the different definitions of fundamentalism!
I hadn't seen the question. The Reagans were given a house. It was widely reported at the time, and it is not generally well-known that they eventually bought the house. But they weren't paying for it when they moved in--at least, they haven't that I have seen.
There is no illegitimate interregenum.
If you insist on stamping your feet with your fingers in your ears, I can't stop you, but please don't fool yourself into thinking that the nation agrees with you.
It's time to grow up.
Sorry, I was in the midst of posting, I will take any future comments there.
Calgal,
Your average white trash doesn't buy 5 million dollar homes. Something about their lifetstyle screams "benefits".
I imagine they have laws against that--Bush, after all, moved up to a new job. No one ever really expected the President or anyone in the family to be making a lateral move.
That said, I am quite sure that Bush's buddies do lots of stuff for him--but since Bush can buy whatever he needs himself, it doesn't raise any eyebrows.
I think its ludicrous to even whisper about Hilary's gifts when a candidate sits at 1600 PA who spent more money on his campaign than any US Pres candidate ever and corruptly stole the fuckin office
Then join me in calling for a repeal on the gifts to Senators rules. I was only looking to increase it to $100,000, but looks like you are in favor of an even higher amount.
He's an ex-President.
What's amusing is that no one seems to acknowledge that the Clintons' inability to buy their own property attests, at least in part, to the fact that they spent 30 years in public service out of dedication and interest, not a desire to accumulate money. And unlike the Bushes and the Reagans, they didn't have their own wealth or a rich family.
I am speakin of the entire Falwell Liberty Univ Pat Robertson Martin Olasky fundies...I do count them as legitimate Christians..and will pursue the matter further in the Religion thread
I can't recall the name of the "church" in Houston, a large congregation, used to advert itself as "the House of Love" now it calls itself something like the "House of Money & Success" that and your Evangelical Theme park are fine examples of the Materialist Church of God in Christ ...
No.
They weren't "given" a house.
They weren't given the use of a house.
Friends purchased a house that they thought the Reagan's would like. When they moved in, they paid 15,000 per month, in line with market values. I believe they later purchased it (terms unknown to me).
The house, which was purchased by a kitchen-cabinet consortium of old Reagan pals, including former oilman Henry Salvatori, is rented to the couple for an estimated $15,000 a month.
Source
They are stoopid....the lobbyist gift rule is especially dumb...can't take a Senator to the Palm so you throw an even more expensive cocktail party!
I'm not asking about the laws. I'm asking what you think is right.
Do you think it would be right for some people to give gifts to the role of former governor? Would you object if someone gave gifts to GWB?
I'm glad to see there's someplace we can agree!
What I think is right is irrelevant. But in general, I think legislating gifts is silly. Reporting them is sufficient. And no, I wouldn't object if someone gave gifts to GWB. In fact, I'm sure that they have.
And thanks for the correction on Reagan. I suspect they got other presents as well (the Bushes certainly did) but if they paid rent then there is literally no reason to bring it up, and I'm surprised that example was used.
Jen's 5464 & 5465 to you were moved to Philosophy and Religion please make any desired response(s) there.
Jacob Weisberg has an interesting article up at Slate currently now about the visible lurch to the right that W's handlers have decided to take early on. Probably a combination of rationales, but the one that strikes me as making the most sense is that it all is intended to show the wingnuts what W's handlers would really like to do, so that they can point their fingers at those bad Dems. when in due course these proposals go nowhere. And, I doubt very much that W's handlers really want something like a religious office to get set up and then have the inevitable court challenges end up at the U.S. Sup. Ct. Even Scalia and Thomas should have trouble stomaching this one, without resorting to a one time only "precedent" as in Bush v. Gore.
One article I read said that they later purchased the home, so there is no more rent.
This could prove embarrassing. Ari doesn't seem to have an answer.
Posts concerning the intents of religious groups in administering Federal aid programs are, unfortunately, apt for this thread, because church/state clearly is going to be a political issue.
of course. however, that wasn't what the conversation i moved was dealing with. so, a conversation wrt Bush's 'idea' is very apt.
Well, no, dumbfuck. They aren't discriminated against. They get a standard deduction that includes an allowance for all of those sorts of things. It's only if you give more than the standard deduction--which gives you a big advantage anyway--that you get to itemize.
Not that those who don't itemize have a high marginal tax rate anyway, so I don't see the policy as all that useful, but there is nothing wrong with it in principle.
A University of California study on Miami-Dade's computerized ballot data showed as many as 1,700 voters invalidated their presidential ballots because they mistakenly punched the chad immediately below the one corresponding to their preferred candidate.
The Herald found that 85 percent of the 1.7 million voters in the three counties punched at least one chad that didn't correspond to a candidate -- a feat that's supposed to be impossible with a properly maintained voting machine.
Its not hard to do as I tried to point out yesterday....the problem is the office is really meaningless, a new bureaucracy in search of a mission....the DANGER comes in the Bush/Olasky scheme which would specifically permit public funding of fundie proselytizing....
But itemized deductions only kick in if you have more than a certain amount of deductions.
So, for example, if you purchased a house and have interest deductions of only $5K, you don't itemize. Or if you pay more than 7.5% AGI in medical costs but this is only $2,000, you don't itemize. You aren't being discriminated against.
Now, if instead he is talking about setting up accounts like people do for health and child care, that's different. However, I heard nothing to that effect in the description. I also think it's a pretty stupid idea, in that it will probably cost more to administrate than it will be used.
Granted there is the case that he like his old man is unprincipled and a doofus but if had to choose one explanation for His Moronicy
Because the press and other election researchers will eventually count some of these ballots--in fact, newspaper reporters from The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal have already descended on Florida with a team of accountants and expect to have a count completed before the end of January--we may rapidly be heading toward the very eventuality that Antonin Scalia, the superpartisan Supreme Court justice, was trying to avoid: the embarrassing (for Bush) revelation that Gore actually carried the state. The first time the Republicans stole Florida, only a small ripple was left in the history books; a second time could leave a deep and damning stain on the party.
Grand Old Poopstain!
I agree with your comment about incentives. I'd like to see a total review of the tax structure, rather than this continuous micro-managing, but other than that, the idea has some positive aspects.
For once I can agree not just with Dusty but with DeLay...GOP to the max, balls to the wall!
But I bet on serious backpeddaling
Imagine, however, all of the wonderful new movie plotlines if, say, someone is able to give away all of his or her money to someone other than a spouse (say, to a sweetie) just before croaking
review of the tax structure, rather than this continuous
micro-managing, but other than that, the idea has some positive
aspects."
I am with you here. I suspect the main point where we disagree is the progressivity of a simplified tax structure. But as long as you are going to micromanage, charity is a far better reason than most.
The aim of The American Prospect is to contribute to a renewal of America's democratic traditions by presenting a practical and convincing vision of liberal philosophy, politics, and public life. We publish articles for the general reader that attempt to break through conventional understanding and creatively reframe public questions. Ours is not a magazine of complaint, of angry gestures, or of private irritations. It is a magazine of public ideas, firmly committed -- however unfashionably -- to a belief in public improvement. America can do much good, and it can do much better.
The American Prospect was launched in 1990 by Paul Starr, Robert Kuttner, and Robert B. Reich. Originally a quarterly, it shifted to bimonthly publication in 1996 and most recently to biweekly in 1999. The Prospect is available on newsstands, by subscription, and online. It is published by The American Prospect, Inc., an independent nonprofit organization established by the magazine's founders. We are also proud to host and produce the Electronic Policy Network, a disseminator of the leading research from over 60 progressive policy organizations.
The American Prospect
Tnx
But charity? Naw.
couldn't accomplish the equivalent of vouchers by giving people
making less than $60K a year a tax credit if they send their kids to
private schools. "
Very expensive at the Federal level, unless you only do a credit well below the amount of private school tuition. And you would also get opposition from the usual suspects who would see it for what it was. Although it would nicely avoid the Constitutional questions.
Oh, sure. All they are talking about for vouchers is what--$1500/year?
My point was only that charity is low on the list of incentives for the people who don't itemize, IMO.
what--$1500/year?"
Since Federal education spending is miniscule, Bush's current voucher plan won't even come close to that. The state voucher programs I am most familiar with are in the neighborhood of 3k a year. That is roughly the per student share of state funding for K-12 education. In the Milwaukee voucher program, the state required that any private school that accepted vouchers had to accept the $3k amount as total tuition payment. There was still no shortage of interest from private schools, as I recall.
"My point was only that charity is low on the list of incentives for the people who don't itemize, IMO."
I assume you mean that it is a low priority for which to create incentives? I agree that it is lower than education, but that is a pretty high standard.
Well, that wouldn't work. I was thinking more of giving people who couldn't afford it a credit towards paying for it. It wouldn't be the same as vouchers, obviously, but it would pay lower income families for putting their kids in private schools.
Actually, it could be used for any educational investment in kids. Tutoring, for example. Private music lessons. Whatever. (again, only for those making $60K or lower.
I agree that it is lower than education, but that is a pretty high standard.
You want incentives for the people who don't have enough deductions to itemize? How about disability insurance? A credit (as opposed to a deduction) for retirement program contributions, for those who aren't covered through their employers? How about a credit for paying kids health insurance (I don't think that exists yet, does it?)?
Investment in kids, income protection, and retirement all go well before charities who don't need their pittance anyway.
before charities who don't need their pittance anyway. "
Look, we are talking about an inexpensive subsidy of charitable giving, not a $2000 per capita retirement program. The benefits are less, but so are the costs. I don't have a problem with it.
Ethylene glycol phenyl ether
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said today he would vote against Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft but would not support a filibuster to stop the nomination. Leahy's opposition to a filibuster lessened the chance that opponents could successfully use delaying tactics to prevent confirmation of President Bush's most controversial Cabinet choice. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., also announced today she would vote against Ashcroft, telling a news conference: ''His record and his views placed him on the distant shores of American jurisprudence.''
HaHaHa!
Go Ravens!
We were talking about priority, not cost, as I understand it. Your last two questions seemed to make it clear that you were asking on that as well. You are now saying well, it's cheap and so who cares?
That's a different issue, although I doubt it is that cheap. My objections are, in order: it is incorrect to call this "discrimination" and if Bush wants to dick around with the rules on itemization, there are lot of things that are more important and could be structured to be just as inexpensive.
No, that isn't what I was saying. You contrasted several major policy initiatives with a charitable deduction, pointing out that the charitable deduction would amount to a pittance. But those major policy initiatives are very expensive and are likely to be very controversial. In contrast, a tweaking in how charitable donations are made is likely to be cheap and uncontroversial.
My point is just that we shouldn't let the best become the enemy of the good.
Of course it is. Those who don't itemize pay a paltry percent of total income tax revenues, and probably don't don't donate a huge percent of their income to charity anyway. A small percentage of a small percentage is a very small number.
I'm still waiting for you to defend your position in P&R.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Microsoft's lawyers urged a federal appeals court today to reverse a judge's order to break up the computer giant, saying the judge was biased and the government did not prove the company engaged in unlawful conduct. In a court filing, company lawyers said the Justice Department had conceded that a breakup would not affect Microsoft's position in the market nor would it end allegedly unlawful conduct. The court's brief labeled as ''extreme'' a judge's order last June 7 that the computer giant be broken into two companies.
by RON KAMPEAS
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- From rent to groceries to galoshes, the new president's men and women are discovering what Bill Clinton's Arkansans and other presidents' aides learned before them: Washington is one expensive town.
Faced with sticker shock at almost every turn, the transplanted Texans are having to make Lone Star State-size adjustments.
''I came here with a budget, but my first day here, I realized my budget doesn't exist in this city,'' said Adam Goldman, a political aide to George W. Bush when he was governor and now associate director of the White House Office of Public Liaison.
In all, 200 to 300 Texans who worked in the Bush campaign have moved to Washington.
Stop the presses!!!
I needed to be reminded of that right now, given the fact that I will have freezing rain for my commute home.
Of course, much of that is due to rent control. The problems with rentals in the Bay Area suburbs right now is due not to rent control, but a shortage of supply due primarily to corporate rentals and an inability to buy (not afford, just buy) housing. It should calm down pretty soon.
I'm about to refinance my NC home and it will run me half of that, with taxes, and that house is some 3600 square feet, all but 800 of it finished.
But at $2100 in Santa Clara for an apartment, it's time to buy. I've just been waiting for the market to cool down, as is true for a good bunch of people in my position. That's one of the reasons why the housing market in the Bay Area never dives completely.
Yes, happily things seem to have topped out all over. For once, I actually rode it through a boom time and ended up with lots of savings, no credit card debt, and I'm ready to take advantage of a slump. Bring on da cheap housing.
I have never had the skills to work in government--but one thing that would always keep it off the list of options is the low pay. I don't think I could afford to live in DC--or California---on government pay.
Although I still think that a lot of what is going on now is posturing/pandering for the right wingers, I am beginning to think that Jexster might be right - W to the extent he is anything may at bottom be a wingnut.
Of course, it's people like her that make it so prohibitive for everyone else. (g)
Janjon,
I agree on the immunity of the areas you mention.
I wonder how Bush will answer the separation of funds vis a vis his willingness to let churches do it but not international family planning agencies?
Also, this really does come out of the blue. I don't know that it will fly. Have you read anything about the guy who is going to head it up and his claims of a gazillion teen criminals? Which he backed off from once it became clear that crime was dropping.
You would think that rent control would end soon as a practical matter, because of actuarial impact. But, the number of New Yorkers who still live in the apt. where they grew up is amazing. (Many of these, I am sure, "snuck" back in at some point when they realized what a great deal mom and pop had and perhaps even after the survivor of mom or pop had nothing more to say in that or any other matter, but, hey, it is a hard thing to police and people will lie - for a two bedroom, eat in kitchen.
no, don't know anything yet about the guy heading this up. I gather this was the brainstorm of Steve Goldsmith who was mayor of Indianapolis and definitely is a believer in heavy private/church/charitable involvement in what many areas that many think come more than close to being a breach of church/state limits.
To head the effort, Bush named University of Pennsylvania professor John DiIulio Jr. The appointment may raise eyebrows in some political and religious circles, for DiIulio is hardly a typical bureaucrat. He's a prolific, opinionated academic who has warned of an oncoming wave of juvenile crime and advocated tougher sentences for criminals. Rarely do such writers and researchers get the chance to head a federal agency where they can put some of their theories into practice.
Bush lauded DiIulio today, calling him "one of the most influential social entrepreneurs in America. . . . He has a servant's heart on the issues that we will confront."
While DiIulio has many other admirers, he also has numerous detractors who say his predictions of waves of "juvenile superpredators" have proven to be overheated and overstated. A 1996 article in the journal Legal Times said DiIulio "is vehemently denounced by many criminologists." It quoted Norval Morris, a law professor at the University of Chicago and co-editor of The Oxford History of the Prison, as saying: "I do not think highly of his scholarship. . . . He preaches what people want to hear in a field where myth far outruns reality."
In the article, DiIulio suggested that his critics might be "intellectually bankrupt" and "full of crap."
On the other hand, he also said the Supreme Court's decision in December was full of crap. So he's not all bad.
But if this needs congressional approval, I don't see it flying. Not if it is attacked properly, which should be pretty easy.
I think the Democrats are rolling over for Bush...are they even protesting anything? I mean, besides the Ashcroft nomination, which they know will go through regardless.
Judith,
The Dems rolling over? I think they've played a canny game. They've gotten Ashcroft to contradict himself and even though he'll be nominated, it won't be easy. Given that he's a Senator and was generally expected to not have any problems, that's a plus. Norton hasn't been confirmed yet. They've only confirmed the uncontroversial ones.
So I've seen no signs that the Dems are rolling over thus far.
Maybe I watch too many Sunday Morning Pundit Fests.
As feeble as this Presidency's so-called "legitimacy" is, it just would not be smart politics to be seen as being unduly obstructive at this point.
I haven't seen any complaints about the Dems rolling over, either.
I will say this: Bush has thus far proven more interesting than I thought. I figured he'd play it safer, which worried me. Instead, he appears to be giving a lot of easy targets--although the verdict's not in on that yet.
Cal:
: Bush has thus far proven more interesting than I thought.
....and yet, I can't get past the idea that Cheney and Rove give him his script each evening and Laura preps him on it...
Oh, I understand what you are saying. But he's been caught in what is a potentially serious contradiction between his failure to fund agencies that provide abortion (even if they don't use funds for abortion) and his willingness to fund religions (if they promise not to use funds for that purpose). Add that to the fact that really, Americans get quite squidgy about church and state issues and it could be problematic.
Besides, is it constitutional?
(okay, I asked in the Cafe but it is empty...is TT down again?)
I suspect janjon is correct. Nevertheless, I'm hoping for a meeting with my fellow Ordained Ministers of the Church of Bob. I'm confident we can come up with some worthwhile programs.
I think so.
Yet again.
Any bets on whether this will make Cazart more humble?
OK, didn't think so.
Back up now, if you don't mind molasses
Sorry, I was taught not to lie.
For Solicitor General, Bush will dance with who brung him...
WASHINGTON (AP) - The lawyer who argued the Supreme Court case
that decided the election for President Bush is the leading
candidate to be the administration's advocate before the high
court, several people close to the selection process said Monday.
Theodore Olson is expected to be named solicitor general as soon
as this week, after a Senate vote on the nomination of John
Ashcroft to be attorney general, lawyers and Olson friends said.
All spoke on condition of anonymity.
``Ted has it unofficially,'' a lawyer familiar with theselection process said.
WASHINGTON – Former first lady Nancy Reagan said Sunday that she and her husband repaid friends for a $2.5 million house purchased for them in California before they left the White House in 1989.
In an interview taped for airing Tuesday night on CNN's Larry King Live, Mrs. Reagan acknowledged that most people probably believe the house was a gift because it has been portrayed that way in recent news accounts about gifts that former President Bill Clinton and his wife took with them when he left office Jan. 20.
But Mrs. Reagan said that the house was always considered a loan and that the arrangement was made public at the time – even before Ronald Reagan left office.
"We had never known that," Mr. King said.
"Well, at the time it was public," she replied.
"The gift was public, but I never knew," Mr. King said.
"That we repaid? Well, you know, some things are just left out of stories," Mrs. Reagan said.
"So it was always a loan?"
"Always. Always. Our money was in a blind trust and we had to buy a house and we didn't know how much money we had, so the friends bought it and then we repaid them with interest."
The group of friends who bought the house obtained an opinion in advance from the Office of Government Ethics saying the arrangement would not violate ethics standards or laws.
An Associated Press story on that opinion in April 1988, more than nine months before the Reagans left the White House, reported that the deal called for them to pay fair-market rent on the house under a three-year lease that gave them an option to buy.
So the Reagans obtained and paid off a quite conventional loan and got no 'free' rent whatsoever for that house.
In contrast, the Clowntoons did the equivalent of stealing the silverware on a grand scale when they left the WH.
: Bush has thus far proven more interesting than I thought.
....and yet, I can't get past the idea that Cheney and Rove give him his script each evening and Laura preps him on it...
We don't expect you to, or else you wouldn't really be JAH.
When George W. Bush nominated John Ashcroft for attorney general, commentators portrayed it as the one bone that George W. Bush would throw to the religious right -- a way of shutting up the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons so he could ignore them henceforth. Oops. Instead of settling for Ashcroft and moving center, Bush spent his first week in office systematically fulfilling the Christian right's To Do list -- and adopting its (often-exclusionary) rhetoric. No end is in sight...
[Boy! Am Glad We Elected Gore!]
More
Thank 'ya Jaysus!
You Gotta Have Faith!
The dubious elements of Bush's victory are so numerous that questions regarding his legitimacy are appropriate--even urgent....Kevin Phillips
The Guardian - a LW bird cage liner which is so clueless and journalistically irresponsible that its staff thinks that Florida carried 21 electoral votes. Naturally they would buy into counting bullshit overvotes and pinprick dimples. They're fucking shameless two-faced totalitarian pigs, after all.
I think that paper endorsed Bush...
Kausfiles isn't quite ready to look forward, Bush-style; it's still eager to learn who really won the 2000 election. If you share this quaint antiquarian interest, you will want to read today's Orlando Sentinel,.which contains the results of a highly significant press recount of 15 small Florida counties.
The Sentinel-led recount matters because the most important question to be resolved in Florida is this one: Who would have prevailed if a fair hand-recount of all the ballots in the state had been conducted? I don't know about you, but I would be quite comfortable knowing that the reason Bush is president is that a lot of Gore voters screwed up their ballots in ways that made discerning their intent impossible. I'd be comfortable knowing that the reason Bush is president is that some election officials decided not to count dimples as votes. I'd even comfortable knowing that the reason Bush is president is that voting machines in poorer districts were more prone to create those dimpled chad. But I'll be in serious, long-term democratic distress if it turns out Bush is president only because a fair hand recount, under reasonable, strict standards, by duly elected canvassing boards, was never conducted ...
The Sentinel recount looked only at counties using optically-scanned ballots--where voters use pencils to mark ovals next to their candidate's name, much as in a machine-readable SAT test.
John
He was a Nixon guy right?
God Squad on the move...
BEAUMONT, Texas (AP) - A federal appeals court in New Orleans has sent back to a lower court a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a Beaumont schools counseling program called ``Clergy in the Schools.''
By a 10-5 vote Monday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an April 1999 ruling by a three-judge panel of its own court saying the program was unconstitutional. The full court ordered further review of the program and all other volunteer programs in the school district.
A group of students and parents are arguing that operating the program in the Beaumont Independent School District violated the constitutional separation of church and state.
God Squad on the move...
BEAUMONT, Texas (AP) - A federal appeals court in New Orleans has sent back to a lower court a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a Beaumont schools counseling program called ``Clergy in the Schools.''
By a 10-5 vote Monday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an April 1999 ruling by a three-judge panel of its own court saying the program was unconstitutional. The full court ordered further review of the program and all other volunteer programs in the school district.
A group of students and parents are arguing that operating the program in the Beaumont Independent School District violated the constitutional separation of church and state.
ooops, double clutch...
The Public Administration Dept of San Francisco State Univ. maintains a comprehensive listing of public policy websites
Check It Out!
"If you follow the logic [of the Bush Theft] through, the implication is we have no guarantee of a right to vote in presidential elections, which is astonishing."
Last June the New Republic predicted the Fundie Funding Intiative announced today....
In fact, the magazine wrote several articles on the subject nearly a year ago...
I have posted this twice and do so again....
From The "I Told You So" Dept
Much alarmist ranting and wringing of hands over the soon-to-be proposed Faith Based funding programs.
Pfffffttt.
You people act as if there is the slightest chance that any organization which has not already demonstrated efficiency and trustworthiness in its handling of money for outreach programs has a chance of getting its hands on any of this money - as if the barefoot, drunken pastor from the local Four-Square Church of the Pentecost will be able to just walk up to a counter at the Faith-Based Money Store and withdraw $20,000 for some sort of "community outreach".
Ain't gonna happen, folks.
Groups such as the Salvation Army, Catholic Social Services, Bethany Christian Sevices, etc, which have already proven themselves more capable than the gov't of directing aid where it really needs to go, will now be capable of providing even more services. As far as I'm concerned, if there is (as was suggested upthread) some worthy wiccan group or Church of Bob organization from which to offer these services, give it to 'em.
The important thing - and the thing that gets left out of most discussions of Faith-Based charities, is that people who receive assistance from organizations based in their own communities tend to be much better stewards of those gifts, because they are not then viewed as entitlements.
check
A former U.S. President has just used the word "tit" on national TV. (And it wasn't Clinton.)
Okay - who then?
I cut & pasted these articles to my home page for "easy" viewing. If the GOP is going to start a right-wing reign of terror I feel that it is my civic duty to side with radical environmentalists (though I still despise whining and aimless "leftists"). This is from a person who considered himself a "Centrist Democrat."
Christie Whitman=Environmental Disaster
Gail Norton Slated to Join Bush's Eco-Hating Thugs
Russia Halts Military Cuts as Hawks Take Over in the US
Visit the href="http://451world.com/fame.html">Conservative Hall of Fame: as decadent as it gets!
3. Nerd roars by
2. Be darn sorry!
1. "Sober?" "Ran dry."
It's confusing to them. DC Democrats just don't know how to deal with love.
Rose, ya gonna work for the God Squad or for the Justice Dept?
more capable than the gov't of directing aid where it really needs to
go, will now be capable of providing even more services.
This is somewhat misleading. The groups you mention have set up separate and distinct non-profits away from the parent religious groups to administer these services. These non-profits are staffed by professional social workers who are often not associated in any fashion with the parent religious group.
Groups such as Catholic Social Services and Lutheran Social Services view Bush's plan with concern. They see a great potential for religious patronage becoming entangled with political patronage. Also, they worry about service being contingent upon proselytization.
Why should my tax monies be used to fund another's religious views?
Bethany Christian Sevices, etc, which have already proven
themselves more capable than the gov't of directing aid where it really needs to go, will now be capable of providing even more services
Not merely "somewhat misleading" its a god damned lie...
I have worked for faith based charities...I know people who for the SA....the only current restrictions are on proselytizing...period end of bushShit
So much for local control but Bush proved that to be a lie in FL
Boy - you got me there, jex.
Way to go Ohio!
[easy mark that one]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And currently, the only place critically ill AIDS patients of no means in Grand Rapids can receive treatment is at Mary Free Bed -a Catholic Hospital run by the local diocese. Boy, you should SEE all the people lining up to refuse these services because they don't want to be preached to.
Easier to "save their souls" that way. Didn't you read Cardinal O'Connor's obit? Oh that man was just full of compassion for the dead!
Will we see Government-funded Unification Church mass weddings in order to help promote "families?"
lisajolie
lisajolie
They already have...or at least they belong to one along with John Ashcroft.
Of course, I have only Molly Ivins word for it so you can see I lie...
Sorry, I meant to link this:
Molly Ivins
The first half is about Texas aprés George; second half about Ashcoft and Co.
serving Ralph Nader. A Florida dem congressman is quoted as saying,
"We're not going to touch him with a 10-foot pole....He has
divorced himself from the very ideals that made him a worthwhile
political actor. He sold out his constituency." The story
describes Nader as "stunned by the backlash."
Well, duh. Nader's ego is sufficiently huge that he could have miscalculated the effects of his trip through the daisies, but....
He was and is and will always be an asshole.
But, janjon , he's nice to his mother...that should count for something.
Hey - it's gonna happen. Some individual or group is bound to misuse gov't funds, and Bush's program will take a hit whenever that happens.
And you people will act like it's the end of the world. No matter that it's only in the last generation or so that gov't has taken over the dirty work from Faith-based groups, during which time we've seen, and become inured to, absolute corruption resulting in monstrous waste in just about every program.
Better that some medicaid supplier should make 100's of millions of dollars charging $60 for a week's worth of Depends, than someone should have to listen to a prayer while sitting down to a free meal.
Better that someone spend a month filling out forms, have every aspect of their life examined in minute detail, and be subjected to monthly invasions of their home by total strangers on the public payroll, than they should be invited to attend a service at the church, temple, or mosque where they get their weekly groceries.
No one, even in the worst case, is forced to join a house of worship in return for services. But it's perfectly ok that they are required to turn over their entire life - and that of their children - to Big Brother in order to be eligible for programs that have proven to do little more than ensure the same for generations to come.
Put simply, he's convinced that Ashcroft in turn is so convinced of the RIGHTEOUSNESS of his beliefs that he (Ashcroft) considers it not only permissible but his duty to lie to either promote or protect those beliefs.
Certainly rings true to me based on what I've now learned about his record and modus operandi.
No way that man should be the Attorney General.
A friend of mine in turn is close to a person who has had the opportunity to get to know Ashcroft...
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
You kill me, janjon!
Here we have a "can't win for losing" story if there ever was one:
What's a Woman To Do?
Well, Patsy Schroeder once commented that all a man's gotta do to "look busy" is open his collar, roll up his sleeves, and sweat a little.
Maybe Hillary's on the cutting edge of Busy Female Senator Chic.
joezan:
I just think it's funny that she is damned when she looks plain, fancy, or otherwise.
Ashcroft gives every indication of being a truly true and driven "believer".
Not only do I think that "true believers" are full of shit, I also think their proselytizing and conviction that theirs and only theirs is the true way is dangerous. Certainly, in a position of public trust and indeed where one's role is to enforce laws in an equal-handed way.
Ergo, Ashcroft should not be confirmed.
It says more about the people who make the comments than about Hillary.
I'd disagree with your belief that things were much better generations ago. I think most reasonable people would.
I was taken aback by your belief that: Better that some medicaid supplier should make 100's of millions of dollars charging $60 for a week's worth of Depends, than someone should have to listen to a prayer while sitting down to a free meal.
Do you really believe this? Shall we abandon the Constitution in order to save some money? Should we throw due process aside if we have a strong hunch the person is guilty? How about free speech?
lisajolie
lisajolie:
At the risk of starting a huge constitutional argument here, I would argue that the phrase to which you are referring is "Freedom of Religion", not freedom from religion.
It's all been said before -here and elsewhere.
But it is only recently that merely hearing a prayer has been defined as a trampling of someone's freedom of religion. No faith-based program I'm aware of has ever required membership, nor kept anyone from practicing the religion of their choice. Were I to ever find myself in dire straits, dependant on my local mosque for sustenance, I would gladly put up with - and ignore - the prayers as I sat down to my supper. That is everyone's right.
Interesting links. I've been wondering the same thing. I thought that a few Clinton people came out and said, "Look. I was there the last day. There was no vandalism. There was no mess."
That was when the emperor's nudity was noticed, apparently, when no one would go on the record with real abuses. They covered it up with "Oh, we want to unite", but it really didn't seem to do the trick.
janjon:
joezan - the messenger may slay you, but it doesn't mean that the message is bad.
Of course not. And your friend, and his friend, are no doubt completely impartial as regards Ashcroft.
I mean, why even waste time posting crap like that?
Politics. Nobody ever said that W's handlers don't know how to play it rough.
Won't you at least admit that the record seems clear that Ashcroft has resorted to lies to achieve or stop certain acts like, say, judicial nominations? It really is unusual for a Republican Senator to say to a rejected nominee that the Senate owes him an apology.
I don't think this program amounts to sponsorship of religion like aid to religious schools or like adopting Scripture as a state motto (Ohio's contribution to the catalogue of Establishment Clause violations). Time will tell, but this does not seem to present the divisive danger of a politician spending public money on religion to curry favor among constituents of a majority religion or to show us what a good, God-fearing person the politician is.
If dollars spent in this way will cost-effectively help people who need help, let's give it a try.
My only concern is the obvious 1st Amendment one. Not that government funding of religious organizations' charitable activities really bothers me - if anything I think religious organizations should be more worried about this, as government has a long history of using its financial power as a lever for social policy - but if the whole thing will be ruled unconstitutional, it is just a waste of time.
Nobody ever said that W's handlers don't know how to play it rough.
It's called Rove-itis and we've seen it many times in Texas...he was called on it before.
And here's one for you, janjon: Last week I attended the Michigan Republican Convention. One of the speakers was a Congressman who had been with Bush during much of the transition. He was absolutely livid over what he had seen with his own eyes - including obscenities scrawled on the walls in magic-marker.
joezan:
Then why didn't they allow the press in to see all this alledged debauchery? Why did Ari say there was ONE guy keeping a list of it "in his head"? Why not at least video tape it and make it public?
And don't give me that "we thought it better to move on". If that were the case, why leak any of it to the press in the first place?
Pictures, please.
Judith:
I'd like to see the pictures too. Maybe someday. In the meantime, the word of this moderate Republican Congressman is good enough for me.
I think that you're also ignoring the very real possibility that religions will be used as political patronage pawns. It isn't too farfetched to imagine politicians promoting some religious group over an another in competition for funding.
I'd also like to see some evidence that religious groups are more effective or efficient in providing services.
lisajolie
So in essence, we are talking about funding charitable activities in organizations where these firewalls have not been set up. This potentially opens a can of worms. Saying that "money will only be spent on activity X" is easier said than done. What I *don't* want is for government aid to simply displace assistance that is already being funded by religious organizations, allowing those organizations to simply shift the money toward religious activities, including proselytization. Preventing this would require strong governmental oversight. It isn't impossible - you can look at the books, give short term grants for discrete programs, and require matching funds. But the government has to be on the ball.
This is a reasonable fear, but not much different than other constiuency issues that government agencies deal with all the time. Why wasn't this charity in my district funded? Etc.
"I'd also like to see some evidence that religious groups are more
effective or efficient in providing services."
I woud be surprised if there is any. But the logic is just that there is no reason they will be *less* likely to succeed, as many religious organizations have a long history of charitable work. Simply by having more organizations, religious and secular, to choose from, government has a larger pool of applicants from which to choose, which will almost certainly increase the effectiveness of government funds.
NPR had a report on the fact that certain religious groups have established separate non-profits to administer social services. A spokesperson for Catholic Social Services was very concerned about the points you raise.
lisajolie
It isn't too farfetched to imagine politicians promoting some religious group over an another in competition for funding.
But it was pretty far-fetched, 35 years ago, to imagine politicians bestowing contracts upon secular providers, suppliers, and service organizations in competition for funding, who would then gouge us to the tune of 100s of billions of dollars, wasn't it? I mean, if your skepticism is based upon past history, that is the history you are going on. Where was everyone's skepticism then?
Harold Stassen has a long history of running for President. I wouldn't say that he has been particularly effective at it.
Effective social services and charity involves skills and talents that transcend a willingness to help.
lisajolie
I would remind you that pork barrel politics isn't unconstitutional. Advancing one religion over another is.
lisajolie
Heh. I met him in 1993 -he bought some stuff at a store I worked at during Grad school. I asked him if he was still running for President. His response was "walking."
"Effective social services and charity involves skills and talents that transcend a willingness to help."
Sure, but this can be said about secular charities as well. I see no reason for a presumption that secular charities are superior. IMO, the reasonable presumption, lacking any evidence to the contrary, would be that they are equal.
...plus, none of the secular providers has ever had the onus of scrutiny of the degree to which Faith-based organizations will/have subjected.
As far as comparative efficiency between secular and faith-based programs, it is largely unmeasurable, because to a great extent you are comparing apples and oranges. But the savings just in administrative costs and overhead are well established. Again, though, I assert that the biggest benefit is the fact, which many studies have borne out, that people who receive services within their own communities are better stewards of those gifts. Whereas dependency on gov't programs fosters an atmosphere of deceit and temporary compliance, people are much more careful about cheating their neighbors.
What???
programs, it is largely unmeasurable, because to a great extent you
are comparing apples and oranges."
How so? In the contest we are discussing, both are trying to achieve the seem operational outcomes.
"But the savings just in administrative costs and overhead are well established."
Where? By whom?
lisajolie:
I would remind you that pork barrel politics isn't unconstitutional. Advancing one religion over another is...
I would remind you that I was replying to a post wherein you were worrying over the possibility that charities in comp for the same monies might be unfairly considered. Either way - secular or faith-based - it is illegal. And, really -this isn't the way politicians work. The lure of favor within one's own church is nothing compared to the lure of a hefty kickback from a multi-billion $ company. And, again - the level of scrutiny will automatically be ratcheted up, as it should be.
Wombat:
That is odd. "They do such a good job without our help. I know!! Let's help them!"
Furthermore, there are many religious institutions that in carrying out their private charitable work discriminate in who they hire and who they serve on religious grounds, on grounds of adhering to the religious values of the institution (such as institutions that won't hire women for certain roles, won't hire single pregnant women because they engaged in sex outside of marriage, won't hire gays and lesbians etc.). Do we spend public monies on such groups that advocate discrimination?
lisajolie
Rask:
Where? By whom?
Here's a real-world example.
For around 20 years our court ran its own in-patient and out-patient chemical dependency program - an off-site clinic in town, and 4 beds in the detention center for teens who had violated conditions of their probation by using, where their treatment could continue while they are locked up. We had one full-time therapist.
6 years ago when we built a new facility, increasing our bed space from 16 to 40 beds and devoting an entire pod of 8 beds to the chemical dependency program, we discovered that although the population of drug and alcohol cases had only doubled, our costs had more than tripled - we would need at least one other therapist, expanded follow up, and our off site facility was woefully inadequate - as well as being too far from the county's population (and drug) center. As a temporary measure, we leased a building in the county's center - which alone doubled the budget - while we considered other alternatives.
Enter Catholic Social Services. They bought the building we were leasing, incorporating other services there, and took over our entire chemical dependency program. For less than we were spending with only four kids in-patient and four out-patient, we get:
One full-time and one part-time therapist serving 8 kids in-patient and 16 out-patient; a whole team of counselors and therapists who do follow-up work in the community - at the schools, at the kids' homes, jobs, etc; employment services for ALL juveniles -not just those in the dependency program; comprehensive drug testing - whereas before, our officers were responsible for tracking down probationers to administer a very shabby pee-test (which checked only for pot and cocaine), CSS runs its own clinic, which checks for just about everything that can be checked for...etc, etc, etc.
The best part, though, is that both the recidivism and success rates for our kids in the chemical dependency program have improved dramatically.
Beyond that, 10 years ago we farmed out our foster care and adoptive services to Bethany Christian Services - counties of our size who still administer these programs themselves are paying 3 to 4 times what we do.
Sounds more like economies of scale in action, a factor which has nothing to do with religious affiliation.
And doesn't Catholic Social Services already receive some federal funds, as its charitable activities are sufficiently separate from the religious activities of the Catholic Church?
I might also mention that CSS recently took over an adult drug rehab facility for which I used to work - the only in-patient program for adults on this side of the county - which was administered by a public hospital, which could only afford to fill 18 of its 92 beds at the end.
CSS has turned the program around completely, and it is now operating at 80% of capacity.
Senator Hillary admitted that THERE WAS A MEETING IN THE WH and SHE WAS PRESENT in the meeting....
Sounded fishy.
NEW YORK (AP) -- Driven down by growing fears of a recession, consumer confidence fell sharply in January to its lowest level in four years. The survey came as Federal Reserve officials met to determine whether or not to cut interest rates in an attempt to stimulate the struggling U.S. economy. The Consumer Confidence Index dropped about 14 points to 114.4, the lowest level since December 1996 when it was 114.2, the Conference Board reported. Consumers are decidedly more pessimistic about business and employment conditions, the board said.
++++++++++++++++++++
The Clinton legacy of his final days.............
I think the religious organisations should be wary of accepting federal money. They will become quasi federal agencies subject to various rules, regulations and audits. This may kill the very qualities that make them effective in helping their clientele.
Is CSS a subsidiary of Catholic Charities, or a separate entity entirely?
Rask:
I worked for a state-run treatment center for 10 years. The per-diem costs alone were over twice what they are at faith-based or even private facilities because of gov't bloat - one administrator for every two grunts - while the success rate was not even a factor... in fact, it seemed to me that the idea was to keep the kids locked up as long as possible; indeed, the average stay at the facility where I toiled was upwards of two years, which was entirely consistent with most other such facilities in the country.
Diva:
Sorry, I don't know.
I share the same puzzlement. A more consistent approach would be to lower government spending in order to stimulate more private donations to charities, thus enabling charities to provide services to larger numbers of people, as they did historically.
Pelle:
That is my only concern, wrt recent proposals. The knife cuts both ways - those who are nostalgic for the good old days might do well to also remember that their priest or pastor also used to be able to tell them for whom they should vote. It's a much different world.
But that is a completely different question. You claimed that faith-based charities were more efficient than secular charities, not that they are more efficient than state-run treatment centers.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's environmental Cabinet choices, Gale Norton for interior secretary and Christie Whitman as head of the Environmental Protection Agency, appear to have enough bipartisan support to assure Senate confirmation. Their approval, expected today, would leave John Ashcroft, the attorney general-designate, as the only unseated Cabinet member. His deeply conservative views on civil rights, homosexuals, abortion, guns and the role of judges have come under fire from Democrats and liberal groups.
donations to charities, thus enabling charities to provide services to larger numbers of people, as they did historically."
Let me get this straight, you think that reducing government spending will *raise* total spending on social services?
Now, if you want to argue toward block-granting, or having governments contract out for provision of more social services, I think you can make a case, but cutting spending is hardly going to allow larger numbers of people to be helped.
Rask:
Joe: You believe the one instance you describe proves that the efficiency advantages of religious organizations over secular ones is "well-established"?
No - and unfortunately, I am having difficulty searching for stats - any stats wrt this comparison. But when we were in negotiations with CSS, their proposals included many such studies (which, admittedly, only included CSS) showing the cost-efficiency to be quite a bit higher - something like $.45 on the dollar for gov't programs, to $.75 for CSS programs.
Rask:
You claimed that faith-based charities were more efficient than secular charities, not that they are more efficient than state-run treatment centers.
But what secular (non-gov't) organizations are there that are large enough, and are community-based, that could possibly substitute for any gov't program?
Gotta run - be back tonight.
The idea is that a faith-based charity is conditioned to do more with less. Hence, you can send a child to Catholic grade school for approximately $1500 to $4500 (depending on whether one is a member of a parish or not) in the Washington, D.C. area, while tax-outlay for that same child in a public school is significantly higher (and the Catholic school is regularly allotting free space to parish members who cannot afford the tuition).
The faith-based organization simply has no choice but to do without the scads of larded administrative personnel (and, thankfully, the unionized demands) of governmental organizations.
charities has been around GOP and religious right circles for some
time. The idea behind it is that if you appeal to a person's sense of morality or nascent belief in some higher power you get better results than if you leave that spiritual element out of it."
I am sure that they believe this, but it is obviously something that needs to proof to support it. A counter-argument would be that religion's inate acceptance of arguments from faith handicaps their ability to make necessary program corrections. How do you criticize "divinely inspired" management decisions?
stats wrt this comparison. But when we were in negotiations with
CSS, their proposals included many such studies (which, admittedly,
only included CSS) showing the cost-efficiency to be quite a bit
higher - something like $.45 on the dollar for gov't programs, to $.75
for CSS programs."
Again, this comparison is between religious agents and government agents, not religious v. secular. All your arguments are supporting a claim completely different from the one you originally made.
The interesting theory aspect really does run smack dab into the hard reality that an organization feeding off of charity (be it from the collection plate, the bake sale, the raffle, the direct mail and/or the tithe) must be leaner and meaner. I've been involved in at least a dozen faith and non-faith based charities. I have no studies, I've worked with lean and mean secular charities, and all of my evidence is anecdotal. But from what I've seen, after application of common sense, the faith-based charities do more with less out of necessity, as opposed to some unspecified divinely inspired better head for numbers.
enough, and are community-based, that could possibly substitute for
any gov't program?"
Habitat for Humanity, many goodwill stores, etc. And do keep in mind that many religiously-affiliated non-profits, like Salvation army and Catholic Services, are *already* able to accept federal funds, as they have sufficiently secularized their organizations from their religious parents.
Thank you.
Rask,
Yes. Eventually.
But it won't be tried, for this reason, among others:
Conserving Power
As a practical matter, however, I have no objection to increasing government spending during a transitional period that frees needy people from excessive dependence on government, as is being done in some of the welfare reform projects currently.
the scads of larded administrative personnel (and, thankfully, the
unionized demands) of governmental organizations."
But this same logic holds true for secular non-profits.
I don't think I was addressing your point. Regardless, I think my last post puts us somewhat closer to the same page.
So if they no longer have "less," will they continue to do "more?" Seems to me that President* Bush is falling for what his supporters would deride as a liberal fallacy if it was coming from anyone other than him.
comparison would be ludicrous. And faith-based versus secular is
irrelevant, as both must, by necessity, be pretty lean and mean."
Well, tell that to Joe. I have consistently argued that I see no reason (without any evidence) why religious non-profits would be more less efficient than secular ones. Joe disagrees.
"But, by and large, secular organizations correspond more-so to corporate structure, which often translates into added fat."
It also translates to economies of scale. I am rather surprised that you seem to think all of corporate America has chosen the wrong organization structure, when they would do much better to reorganize along the lines of the Catholic Church and have A Bishop for Marketing, and an Executive Cardinal for product development.
No. I explained that they do more with less, and why. What they will do with more, hopefully, is incorporate the dollars into an existing lean, mean culture, and do even more.
"I am rather surprised that you seem to think all of corporate America has chosen the wrong organization structure, when they would do much better to reorganize along the lines of the Catholic Church and have A Bishop for Marketing, and an Executive Cardinal for product development."
I'd be surprised if I thought that as well.
You are forgiven.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- With California's $400 million emergency fund exhausted, Gov. Gray Davis has ordered more state money be used to keep the lights on in energy-strapped parts of the state. The governor would not say how much public money would be freed up, however, or how long short-term energy buys would remain possible. In Washington today, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said he was not optimistic the federal government could help California in the short-term
I think you overestimate the application process. I also think that your concerns over conformance to federal regulation is well-taken, but I would expect that you will see governmental infusion to charities, faith-based and secular, streamlined, block in nature, and refreshingly free of the crushing hand of D.C.
Put it on the Current Events thread or provide something resembling commentary that reflects what you think about the problem.
I'll bet Pat Robertson hasn't ridden 'Coach' in years.
I'd like to respond, but you didn't sign your post. Regardless, we are a little past the "Look! I found a horror story!" level here in the discussion.
FU:
but I would expect that you will see governmental infusion to charities, faith-based and secular, streamlined, block in nature, and refreshingly free of the crushing hand of D.C.
And this belief is based on....?
Kismet.
Unlike Clinton/gore's SPR oil release fiasco.
bbb:
Does Jesse Jackson live in public housing?
Does a bear....never mind. Though it has about as much to do with anything as your remark did.
FU:
Kismet.
Oh.....well then. I thought it was maybe based on insider info.
Until the first scandal hits (give it a few months), at which time Congress will start shrieking and increase oversight and the crushing hand of Federal bureaucracy.
Of course, some of what these faith-based organizations propound would be at variance with what Federal guidelines call for.
This exercise is welfare for the religious right, and is right up there in terms of hypocrisy with that of people who do not recognize the Federal government but are quite happy to apply for and receive crop subsidies from that same entity.
The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives will, I expect, do everything it can to reduce the bureaucratic rigamarole for faith-based and secular recipients of tax dollars.
You have no problem for PUSH to pay Jesse Jackson's mistress in the tune of $35,000 ?
I apologize. For a moment, I thought you wre positing lucid thoughts. Yes, this exercise is welfare for the religious right, and is right up there in terms of hypocrisy with that of people who do not recognize the Federal government but are quite happy to apply for and receive crop subsidies from that same entity.
Carry on.
ANJAR, India (AP) -- Tents, blankets and medical equipment poured into India today as hopes for pulling more survivors from the wreckage of a massive earthquake dwindled to near zero and rescuers turned their attention to treating the survivors. Officials have counted more than 6,400 bodies so far and officials estimated the final death toll could rise to 20,000 or more. India's defense minister estimated 100,000 may have died, with twice as many injured. The Red Cross launched a massive relief operation today to towns devastated by the quake and appealed for $16 million in emergency aid.
+++++++++++++++
Two remarks here :
1)California better delays its "overdued" earthquake for a later date.
2)Does the earthquake push India's population back to below 1 billion? So sad!
But maybe Lieberman will spike it.
God bless you all.
Adios.
As I said, if it does pass, the courts won't appreciate the new work. But in the event that the new sanity of sexual harassment suits reduces your client base, I see a new speciality for you.
But I don't know that it will pass. Your Jew joke was odd, though. This is the new version of kinder and gentler, or has Lieberman come out against it?
I am glad we agree.
I would suggest, both historically and philosophically, that US government aid to religious organizations goes against their principles, and will introduce a partnership that they will regret on every level. It would threaten these organizations' autonomy in a way that will detract from the services they provide. It is a very "liberal" initiative (more money will make it work better), and I am amazed that any conservative could support it.
government aid to religious organizations goes against their principles, and will introduce a partnership that they will regret on every level. It would threaten these organizations' autonomy in a way that will detract from the services they provide. It is a very "liberal" initiative (more money will make it work better), and I am amazed that any conservative could support it."
As I understand it, the separation of church and state clause was originally put in place to protect *religion* from government encroachment, not vice versa. I think conservatives have forgotten that.
non-profit in general. It sounds to me that the key change is not excluding organizations with explicitly religious goals.
I believe you mentioned one of my main concerns earlier--by definition, the increased funds will make it possible for the churches to use more of their spared funds for religious activity.
I haven't read back to see if someone has suggested it, but it seems to me that the religious organization, in order to qualify, would have to spend the government funds in addition to their budgeted amount for services.
The civil rights law issues are interesting.
Well, that is why I don't see it passing--or being declared unconstitutional by the courts. I am surprised that Frankie and others don't seem to think that relevant. The ACLU seems to have a good case. Wasn't it you who mentioned the "wall" that many of the organizations build in order to qualify for funds? Why should we bring down that wall?
The Baltimore Raven's defense reminded me of James Baker in the Florida recounts.
And New York Giant's quarterback reminded me of Al Gore .......
1. cabinet - Norton, Chavez, Ashcroft = stinkbomb
Powell et al = purty packaging
2. education reform vouchers=stinkbomb
rest of package copied from Lieberman Bill = purty package
3. God Squad fundie funding = stinkbomb
More Aid to consitutional activites = purty package
services."
The more I think about it, the trickier this gets. Usually, government doesn't micromanage the funding of grant applicants at that level, because it has never really mattered before. Charities are engaged in charitible activities. If government funding displaces some of their money, they just shift it to another charitable activity. I don't think we say to the Salavation Army "we will only give you this money if you don't cut your budget elsewhere". But with a religious group, that activity might be evangelical rather than charitable. So how do you prevent this?
You can micromanage their budgets, requiring them to maintain their current minimum level of charitable activity. But they might redefine what "charitable" means now that there is an incentive to do so. Or they might just keep funding the same while their overall budget grows so federal funding is just displacing future charitable funding. You can try to lock them in at a percentage of their budget, but they can easily dodge this as well through a re-org.
You can require matching funds, but those matches could easily allow cuts in the charitable budget elsewhere. You can limit your funding to new projects, but they might just close old projects.
The point being that if we have to choose between Organization A, that will expand its charitable activities directly proportional to the size of the grant, and Organization B, that will decrease its own charitable expenses in order to fund missionary activity, government gets a much bigger bang for its buck with Organization A.
GREVE IN CHIANTI, Italy (AP) --Ranchers in the heart of Tuscany cooked up more than 2,000 pounds of prized Fiorentina steaks Tuesday in a barbeque protest against proposed new mad cow restrictions.
Thousands raised a glass of Chianti to the threatened Tuscan T-bone, using it to wash down mouthfuls of the palm-thick, marbled meat in the free cookout in a central piazza of Greve in Chianti.
GWB Administration has a record-making strong Cabinet team.
Live with it!
bbb:
We DO have a Current Events thread for stories like that; in fact, stories like that are encouraged there and appreciated.
Elaine Chao was confirmed yesterday.
Don't you think that the mad cow disease has some political implications at home and abroad?
Ask USTR,WTO,USDA,NIH,and FDA.
unconstitutional by the courts. I am surprised that Frankie and others don't seem to think that relevant. The ACLU seems to have a good case."
Franks, and the Bush Camp, mentioned a clause in the 1996 welfare reform bill as precedent. But I haven't seen anyone mention whether that clause has actually been used to fund religious organizations, or whether that law has yet been tested in the courts.
"Wasn't it you who mentioned the "wall" that many of the organizations build in order to qualify for funds? Why should we bring down that wall?"
I am seeing less and less potential value in doing so. If they want to get federal funds, they can set up a secular spin off like the Catholic and Lutheran churches have. But that might not be an option for smaller religious organizations. I suppose the value would come in the extra services those smaller organizations could provide at the local level, assuming that the money wasn't just being sucked up so the organization could beef up its recruitment efforts.
This sort of displacement is quite common, by the way. A good rule of thumb is not to believe that any funding source is truly dedicated, unless the dedicated activity is all the organization does. This happened to my wife last year. She hustled to get a private grant for her school, that would allow her to buy new books for her English class. She won a $1000 grant. The school promptly cut the English Department's textbook budget by $1000, as it was looking for money it could spend on a new roof.
And think of how much that will cost to administer, too--assuming that Bush isn't just planning on letting everyone spend more money on religious activities.
I think it stands a real chance of failing, which is why I'm so surprised at Francis' assumption that it will pass. I can't see it passing legal muster.
Has he been planning on this for a while? I don't remember it getting much discussion in the campaign, and I wonder what legal analysis his experts did on it.
My parish ran a senior breakfast program on Saturdays for about 15 years...funding shifted with neighborhood demographics....
Priests and lay persons served and cooked in the parish hall...the City of SF using some federal funds paid for the kitchen equipment, food, supplies and the salary of a parishioner who was the program director....no proselytizing ever...certainly some occasionally discussed religious subjects but that was rare
Salvation Army drug treatment...we (the parish) have referred numerous homeless persons to this facility which before the org decided not to comply with the City's domestic partners ordinance charged $25 for 2 week detox...there were group counseling activities and such but NEVER EVER did any SA worker try to ram a bible up a client's ass
AIDS Support Group, Roman Catholic Parish - received federal funding thru Catholic Charities..the group which I was actively involved in for several years both in our trainings and in our day-to-day work served atheists, buddhists, jews, protestants, catholics and NEVER EVER criticized or judge or proselytized and in fact, were instructed to and did not only respect other's religious views but did what we could to facilitate and empower whatever,whenever the client wanted
Canon Kip Homeless Shelter - my Episcopal Diocese runs the City's largest....any client has full access to Diocesan religious services and my parish provides lunch on Tuesday for any who wish to come ...salaries of any who engage in religious activity are funded entirely by the Diocese of California
But that's the purty package....neither Catholic Charities nor the Diocese of CA want to use federal funds for catechism class
I have no doubt that the Feds can adequately monitor that the organization is actually doing the task that it has committed to do. But if it is just displacing these funds in the rest of the budget, we get a much smaller social gain than we would have received if we had given the money to a completely charitable organization.
Hear tell Nanny's already pissin on Powell...
Oh, absolutely. California passed a state lottery initiative because a percentage of the profits would go to the schools. The opponents pointed out that the school budgets would be chopped because of lottery money and everyone scoffed.
Some years later, Prop 99 passed to require the state to spend a certain percentage of the budget on schools because of the funding cuts. Justified, of course, by the lottery.
And guaranteeing a certain percentage of the budget is a lousy idea too, of course. But it was the only obvious way to address the problem.
Hmmm.........
It's been my experience that the federal funds are used to supplement existing budgets. It'd be nice if that were the case across the board, rather than what you're saying.
Don't you think that the mad cow disease has some political implications at home and abroad?
of course there are. you simply aren't making any such case - just posting news - which is fine - in the proper thread.
please make your political cases or post in the Current Events thread - this is the second time i've asked you.
Back from first precalculus class...taped to the building elevators
STAGE III ALERT TODAY!
Elevators May Stop Between Floors
Take Stairs If At All Possible
And what does the Moron do?
Drop Dead California! I won't give you a temporary wholesale price cap ....after all Eron needs those 15,000% markups..here's Nanny W's task force
A church has a one million dollar budget, with 100k being spent on a weekly dinner for the homeless in the church basement. The church has run that program well, and using its demonstrated efficiency, applies to the Feds for $100k to run a homeless shelter. They get the award and implement an efficient, admirable program, with no bibles being crammed up anyone's ass.
However, they eliminate their weekly dinner program, as they feel they are doing enough good work with the homeless shelter, and church membership is suffering. They then spend the $100k for the dinners on a program to advertise for increased membership at the local college. No laws are broken, and the terms of the grant are met. However, from a public policy perspective, the $100k would have done much more if it had been given to an organization which *wouldn't* have shifted resources to non-charitable activities.
What makes this worse is that the public now thinks that education is getting a lot more funding, can't figure out why school performance isn't increasing, and assumes that it must be those incompetent teachers.
existing budgets. It'd be nice if that were the case across the board, rather than what you're saying."
Your experience doesn't involve organizations which have a lot of non-charitable religious activities. I am sure that for most existing organizations, Federal funds are supplementary, as all the organizations do is charity, and there is no non-charitable work to displace the money.
If the 100K came from Church funds, it matters not whether the church uses that money to feed the hungry or build a new parish hall or whatever
If it came from federal funds, the Church does not have 100K to spend on these other things.
diff... "
No. Maybe I need to contrast this with hypothetical organization #2, that *doesn't* cut funding to the weekly dinners for the homeless, as they have no non-charitable activities competing for funds.
Salon Shreds Gift Rap...
After eight years of warfare between the press and the White House, could the Clintons' stay have ended any other way? In an utterly predictable finale, reporters, busily concocting motivations and connecting fictitious dots, swooped in for one last pointless, and sloppy, appearance-of-impropriety bust.
And when people try to work around that, they get the kinds of idiocy noted by Calgal.
by LIB QUAID
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats hoped to send President Bush a warning on future nominees Tuesday as former Sen. John Ashcroft moved closer to confirmation as attorney general.
Though a majority of the nine Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee could oppose his nomination, Ashcroft appeared headed for approval by the panel and then the full Senate.
Hence the argument for giving it back to the people.
Salon?
The place where the ad banner is " Elect Algore in 2004" ?
And he'll lose easily to Bush.
Everyone knows that.
That's possible. Certainly a church could be funding 100% then cut to 50% with federal funds and build the steeple...
That can happen under existing regs and really is not at issue in the Moron's God Squad proposal...not to say that it is NOT an issue....
The tradeoff, and this is for the granting agency to decide - Do we get better, more committed, closer to the need service from the church than from a non-religious contractor or perhaps should we set up our own bureaucracy...
The trend, even here in ultra-liberal, generally anti-religious SF is go with the FBO
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said today he believes the Bush administration has close to ''uniform agreement'' with Congress on the need for an across-the-board tax cut. The size of the reduction is the major unresolved issue, he said. O'Neill, who was sworn in to his new post today, said the administration is intensively trying to work out the mechanics of how to make President Bush's proposed 10-year $1.6 trillion tax package retroactive to the first of the year.
But there are many options in between, that would argue are far superior.
Not likely. The disease kills in about 14 months, and we've had W'isms longer than that.
Grand Old Poopstain
From the BVD's of the Body Politic?
Moron's God Squad proposal...not to say that it is NOT an issue..."
How can it happen under existing regs when religious organizations are not eligible?
I think not.
Should Senator Hillary recuse herself from the Ashcroft vote since Ashcroft will investigate some of the Clinton/Hillary scandals?
No more so than any other Democrat he might choose to investigate.
No.
But she should recuse herself from any bills having anything to do with the entertainment industry. (Bet she won't.)
toys
toys, bbb
LOL!
Betcha didn't know that Clinton got his thru on voice vote...
But I'm hardly surprised you wouldn't know that seein as how you don't appear to know very much about anything...
bbb:
I understand your zeal at seeing Ms Norton confirmed but trust me, your congratulations to her mean little.
bbb's congratulatory 5773 to Gale Norton was deleted due to the font screw up
++++++++++++++++
Which "Clinton" ?
How quickly they forget...."which Clinton?" The one which fits the pronoun "his".
Have you given up on Senator Hillary already?
by JOHN HEILPRIN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Gale Norton won Senate approval Tuesday to head the Interior Department despite opposition from environmental groups and some Democrats, including one who said her views on land management were ''out of the mainstream.''
On a 75-24 vote, the Senate confirmed President Bush's choice of the Norton, a past advocate of state's and property rights, to be the government's chief steward for half a billion acres of federal land and natural resources as secretary of the interior.
Republicans said they were confident that Norton could balance both preserving and developing those resources.
''She grew up in Colorado, she understands what wilderness means,'' said Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H.
75-24 !
Don't Get It ? Read This
No, I thought not.
Unanimous voice vote..
Not quite sure why you're cacklin about Norton but I bet you don't know either
Don't you think it a bit premature to even have a hunch that W will be deemed "unbeatable" in 2004? A lot of economy, a lot of things, before then.
I caught that on NPR this morning. Almost scary how much his voice sounds like his father. That alone is worth 10-20%.
McCall also is a very effective public speaker. I still am a bit irked at him for not having tried taking on Pataki the last time around, but certainly am open-minded about either of them. Whoever has the best chance to get the State House back.
bbb...i don't hate you, just loathe your poopstain
I just don't see how this concept will pass constitutional muster.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former New Jersey Gov. Christie Whitman and ex-Colorado Attorney General Gale Norton won Senate approval today to direct the nation's environmental and natural resources policies. The Senate voted unanimously to confirm Whitman as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency after voting 75-24 minutes earlier to accept President Bush's choice of Norton to be secretary of the interior. The votes left all of Bush's Cabinet seats but one -- that of attorney general -- filled just 10 days after his inauguration.
It is largely a joke, but she did accept a number of gifts from entertainment figures. One should consider whether one can vote impartially on a bill when people affected by the bill have provided your furniture, china and flatware.
(Note I didn't say she shouldn't have accepted the gifts.)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republicans pushed John Ashcroft's attorney general nomination toward the Senate floor on today, and his leading Democratic critic backed off a threatened filibuster, signaling that confirmation was all but certain. While the Judiciary Committee met to vote on the nomination, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy indicated he would not object to setting a time for a final roll call in the full Senate. Still, the Massachusetts Democrat said he hoped to focus public attention on Ashcroft's conservative positions on abortion, civil rights and other matters.
boobs like bbb take such pride in such meaningless achievements. This is on the same par as someone a week or so ago pointing out with real pride that W was going to visit the President of Mexico and the P.M. of Mexico.
MOST presidents get almost all of their cabinet nominees confirmed very quickly. It is part of the system.
HaHaHa! Sid Blumenthal.
We're also seizing the opportunity," he said, with programs and papers designed to fill the void of Democratic wonkery. An example was last week's heavily attended panel discussion on "Why Gore Lost," which triggered considerable debate on websites and editorial pages.
Rask asked earlier for examples of faith-based charities working better than secular charities. Can you provide some?
California energy fiasco prior to crisis.
Indeed, much of what made Mr. Bush’s first week seem so successful was the comparison to his predecessor. Mr. Clinton’s vulgar departure couldn’t help but make Mr. Bush’s arrival seem classy. And Mr. Clinton’s own arrival eight years earlier is now a prototype of a bad beginning.
President Bush said yesterday he wouldn't have pardoned Marc Rich and is 'troubled' that predecessor Bill Clinton did," reports the New York Post.
Oh, BFD...I'm "troubled" that GW was involved in Funeralgate before he was appointed Pres, too...so what?
"Bush and his team have already shown a deftness that has surprised veterans in both parties," The Washington Post grudgingly declared.
"George W. Bush is off to a good start … give the man credit," said CBS News' Bob Schieffer.
All this stagecraft was secondary to one genuine substantive development: Fed Chair Alan Greenspan endorsed tax cuts. This not only legitimized a large part of the Bush platform, it made the cuts a whole lot easier to sell.
Are we going to be so excited about FBO's when the Scientologists start offering government funded counseling since they hate psychiatry and psychology? When Polygamists offer family therapy as part of their ministry with our bucks? When Satanists look for funding for a youth sex program? Are we going to turn these people down for funding because of the content of their belief? That clearly will fall afoul of the establishment clause, and there's no finessing it.
I have seen statistics on drug treatment programs that showed those with a religious component have a lower relapse rate than those with out. I may be able to find those stats again. If I can I will post them later.
I second Ronski's request. Got evidence?
AshcroftLied.com
I wonder if they are counting AA as a religious program.
I don't believe so. I am still looking.
activities is that programs that incorporate a religious element have a higher success rate than those programs that are strictly secular. "
The crap injestion capacity of some never ceases to amaze....
What part of "payola for the wacko Religious Wrong" don't you understand?
Anyone really doubt that "faith" is conceived by the backers of this proposal in a very, um, conventional sense?
The Satanist Day Care Center.
A lot of working parents struggle with finding places to leave their
children while they pursue their careers. During your campaign you promised to encourage all parents-- even those on welfare -- to get and keep jobs. The Church of Satan wants to help you keep your campaign promise -- by providing federally subsidized day care! After all, everybody knows how much Satanists love spending time with children. And the Satanists promise that for the kids, every day of the year will be Halloween. I guess that this means lots of candy for the little angels. Yum!
There is evidence that religion helps make prisons more manageable. A 1992 Rutgers University study found that prisoners often seek God to cope with inmate life, which is marked by depression, guilt and self-contempt.[85] Todd Clear, the Rutgers researcher, found that highly religious inmates evidence lower rates of depression and commit fewer disciplinary infractions than other inmates. In another study, correctional officials from three states credited Prison Fellowship's religious programming with improved morale, lower rates of depression and fewer disciplinary infractions.[86]
Inmates who are highly religious while in prison also tend to have lower recidivism rates. A 1990 Prison Fellowship study of 360 ex-convicts found that only 40 percent of those who were heavily involved in religious programs committed new crimes after release compared with 51 percent of the non-religious group.[87] Although this isn't an especially large margin, it's better than recidivism results attributed solely to education, work or drug treatment programs.
A 1996 Prison Fellowship study of 201 inmates involved in religious programs found that high participation in Bible studies is related to lower likelihood of arrest during the one-year follow-up period.[88] A 1992 Prison Fellowship study of 225 New York inmates also found that high religious program participation meant lower odds of being re-arrested.[89]
I for one don't want people who wish to serve their community being discriminated against because of their religious beliefs nor even for their religious lifestyles!
And, in any event, there obviously will be some empirical evidence that some programs that have religious aspects/cores work better than others. I don't think that that goes anywhere near buttressing Biener's broadside to the effect that religious-oriented programs are more successful than secular ones.
Moreover, it is the prosyletizing/coercion/discrimination aspects that are the most bothersome from a constitutional point of view.
It is redux for 5846, of course.
They: religious non-profits are more successful than secular ones.
Me: How do you know?
They: I saw evidence that they are more successful than government. Me: Potentially interesting, but off topic. what about secular non-profits?
They: here is an article showing that religious activities have some positive social effects.
Me: Maybe, but no one is disputing that. What about secular non-profits?
Rinse and repeat.
Rask, or anyone: I asked about this earlier and may have missed a response. Did Bush mention plans for this while campaigning? I mean the agency, not the "faith based is best" crap.
response. Did Bush mention plans for this while campaigning? I mean
the agency, not the "faith based is best" crap."
Not that I recall.
For obvious reasons. It doesn't take too long for reasonable people to conclude that it indeed is a big wink towards the rabid right.
It reminds me of Dave. "I think everyone should have a job. It's a great feeling."
In other words, why worry too much about pesky little things like constitutionality if you don't really think the proposal will fly.
But surely this puts him right up there with Clinton in Don't Ask, Don't Tell territory with a big loss--and one that makes him look like he hadn't thought things through--right off the bat.
Well-chosen words...
Judy Woodruff on CNN: "In a nutshell, Professor Olasky, what is it the president wants to do?"
I would be sure that W's handlers believe the benefits he gets from showing the right kind of flag to the RR outweigh the impressions that some might get that this really wasn't a well-thought out proposal. And, you never know what that increasingly politicized Supreme Court might do. (Bush v. Gore wasn't the first, there have been a number of other recent decisions -mostly involving so-called state vs. federal rights - which smack of politically driven results.)
I'm still wondering if the Prayerfare office is going to be next to the NRA office.
I agree, but my take is this: there are people who fall through the cracks. Period. The choice isn't between a net that catches everything and a net that lets people fall through. The net will always let people fall through--the choice is between allowing other programs to pick up a few of them or letting them all fall through.
My guess is that the strictures and ongoing reviews would make it very expensive, and when Pat Robertson is saying, "Hey, I don't like this" it suggests that too many strictures will stop organizations from signing up.
Well, isn't this special:
Panel Votes On Ashcroft
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- By a 10-8 vote the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday sent the controversial nomination of former Sen. John Ashcroft as U.S. attorney general to the Senate for a final vote.
All nine Republicans on the committee voted for Ashcroft, a former senator from Missouri, but only one Democrat, Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, voted in his favor.
The Republican-led Senate is expected to begin a spirited floor debate either later on Tuesday or Wednesday, with a final vote on President Bush's nominee probably Thursday afternoon.
Thanks heaps, Russ.
It is nice to see one Democrat stand up to this vicious smear campaign. This especially true since so many Democrats have been illegally lobbied by non-profit groups that are barred from lobbying activities.
Now THAT'S a visicious smear!
God yes; I doubt Ashcroft has one sixteenth the clothes and decorator sense of Hormel...to say nothing of Hormels social skills.
Message # 5828
jonesatlaw:
The problem comes with government regulation of the expenditure of the funds. American citizens are entitled to due process in the operation of government benefits programs. So what happens when Joe SixPack is kicked out of rehab for refusing to accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior and higher power? Maybe he turns Muslim in treatment and doesn't buy their theology. Can they kick him out?
Message # 5853
CalGal:
Keep in mind too that even if faith based organizations were more effective (although I believe AA is still the most effective addiction
program).
Every faith-based dependency program I've ever worked with - be it Catholic or Protestant, adult or teen, uses the AA model. In other words, no "God", no "Jesus Christ as Personal Savior"....just one's "higher power".
But I asked that earlier--is AA considered faith-based? Or, if the "faith-based" programs use AA, then why are they considered faith-based?
Rask:
Message # 5677:
Habitat for Humanity, many goodwill stores, etc.
C'mon... HH as compared to what, HUD?
In fact, you just reminded me of a program I remember reading about a couple of years ago - can't remember the name, but I do remember posting about it in reply to something PhilipDavid asked around that time.
Anyway...Black Congressman from The Bronx (odd last name), who also happened to be a minister. His church built a square mile of single-family houses after the burnt-out highrise housing that used to be there was razed, provided the loans for folks to buy them, gave away full toolboxes so that every new homeowner would be ready to make repairs, and, since over 90% of the homeowners were women, provided ongoing classes in basic home maintenance and repair. Huge success.
That's the kind of initiative I'm talking about.
Cal:
Every 12-step program out there is AA-based, one of the steps being to accept that one is not the be-all and end-all - that there is a higher power (they used to say God, but there was, I suppose, some sort of compromise years ago). So, since none of these programs require that one adhere to any particular concept of God, AA is not considered "faith-based" as such.
But there are many churches and synagogues - probably mosques too - which run their own 12-Step programs, which are more denominational in nature. I am pretty sure that should the FBO initiatives pass, such programs would not be eligible.
We have Curious George trying to establish a theocracy. How special.
Pretty nice payoff for the Xtian Coalition after their restraining the urge to scotch Curious George's election chances by marching en masse with bloody faux fetuses and proclaiming that all non-Xtians were doomed to the eternal fires.
In return for holding their speaking tongues, Curious George has rewarded them with something more dear to them than salvation: money.
Of course, it is difficult to believe that Curious George can count to 12.
That's Father Curious George to you, Jade.
Get used to it.
The excesses of the Republican Party on behalf of such an average or mediocre talent may seem odd. But in the case of Bush the younger, the explanation is at once simple and disturbing: the drift of GOP thought processes toward hereditary claim and opportunity, toward family over talent....Kevin Phillips
This is getting pathetic.
Your president is a simian. Of course, for most Repugs, being a simian is a significant step up the evolutionary ladder.
gorilla?
chimp? (that's got my vote)
CD:
Yeah - if they can show that they've done anything for the greater good.
Some of the fundamentalists OTOH I do worry about. That is not to say that there aren't programs with as sterling a character as the outfits I first mentioned. Just that my experience with them is that they do enthusiastically shove their doctrine down your throat, and their help is contingent upon acceptance of their doctrine.
I'd rather see better tax breaks for supporting social work type charities, whether non secular or FBO's.
Jones:
As has already been mentioned, nothing about this proposed program has been fleshed out in the least. But I'm fairly confident that it will not spawn some sort of monstrous Religion-Industrial Complex.
Personally, I would be happy if (as I think was also mentioned earlier) the IR code is merely amended so that even those who don't itemize may claim contributions to such charities, or even (preferably) to one's local place of worship.
That said, I don't delude myself that this is going to be any great boon to Christendom in this country. Contrary to what the alarmists want us to believe, even GWB is smart enough to realize that you cannot open up enough holes to allow Christian proselytizing, without allowing for the same from groups he (and I, or you) may find abhorrent.
I liked these two:
"She's got a good shot, so long as no one
blows her up, causing her faceplate to fall
off and revealing the gears and diodes
beneath."
"No, no--you don't understand: The 19th
Amendment gives women the right to
vote for a president, that's all."
To think, they accused Mao of creating a "cult of personality."
See Michael answer questions. See Michael introduce his interns. See Michael order a glass of Chablis from Linda Chavez's mai...er...friend. See Michael trim his nose hair.
A better title for his website may have been: Baby Huey Goes To Washington.
Word in DC is that a high ranking position for Baby Huey was the price for Big Daddy to sign aboard the Theocracy Express of Curious George.
But the important question is...
What do you think of Laura Bush's ass?
Speaking of nepotism and entitlement, has anyone seen who Curious George has appointed to be Commissioner of the FCC? Why, it's Michael Powell....Word in DC is that a high ranking position for Baby Huey was the price for Big Daddy to sign aboard the Theocracy Express of Curious George.
As in Commissioner of the FCC?
Bill Clinton appointed Powell commissioner.
Now, if what you meant to say was Chairman, according to the Web site, there are four commissioners. Two are Democrats, two are Republicans. The other Republican's term expires this June. Both of the Democrats have previously chaired the commission.
Yep, Powell's promotion certainly sounds like a dark political plot/payoff.
Laura Bush's posterior? I don't think much about it. Do you? OTOH, she really ought not shun the StairMaster and she might think about cutting back on the Goo-goo pies.
Did you visit Baby Huey's Homage To Myself website? I was particularly impressed by the photos of his Elementary School Milk Monitor Certificate and Clean-Plate-Club Membership Card.
I noticed that Baby Huey's bio said that he was injured in a "training exercise." My sources say that the US Army has curtailed training exercise programs involving ingesting vast amounts of alcohol and driving from nightclubs.
GooGoo clusters. Moon pies.
Good suggestion.
Curious George's mate should lay off those also. She should avoid the fried stuff as well. Cut back on the fatty foods and load up on the fruits and veggies. That's the ticket.
Maybe she's trying for her slacks as well.
George has appointed to be Commissioner of the FCC? Why, it's
Michael Powell."
This is an outrage. Sure, Red Shoes, 49th Parallel, and Peeping Tom were great films, but that hardly qualifies the guy to be head of the FCC.
I assume Emeric Pressburger will be his deputy?
No question he is full of himself, too. Watch for him to run for office someday - like 2004.
She has great hair, though.
Of course, I meant Laura.
BTW, the author of Peeping Tom, Leo Marks, has an entertaining book (Between Silk and Cyanide) on his experiences as a codemaster in WWII. 
Jex's article merits reading. Here is a particularly pithy excerpt:
"That could be good news for conservatives who care about places such as the Justice Department. While the public battle rages over the confirmation of Attorney General-designate John D. Ashcroft, the Bush administration is lining up a roster of conservative lawyers for other key posts.
The leading prospect for solicitor general -- the government's chief advocate at the U.S. Supreme Court -- is Theodore B. Olson, the Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher attorney who argued President Bush's Florida election case to the justices. A serious candidate for deputy is Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.), one of the House managers in the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. Columbia University law professor John Manning, who helped Olson in Florida and clerked for former judge Robert H. Bork and Justice Antonin Scalia, might become head of the department's Office of Legal Counsel.
"That's a list of high-octane conservatives," said Clint Bolick at the conservative Institute for Justice. "They will be dealing with the kinds of issues at the core of the conservative agenda."
Read it and weep.
You and me both.
(I will now depart gracefully.)
CD:
what does Message # 5919 have to do with Gay Marriage?
Jade:
." My sources say that the US Army..."
You dragging out your "sources" again Jade?
They were full of shit and led you astray many times two years ago - what makes you think they're any more reliable now?
It is that innocent, child-like faith she has.
Ducky:
what does Message # 5919 have to do with Gay Marriage?
Cellar is obviously channelling Elliot-All roads lead to gay marriage-803.
It's true. Baby Huey was involved in a gruesome car accident overseas while in the Army. Alcohol was involved. Servicemen were killed and injured.
Is that a "training exercise?"
My goodness, life is good when your daddy is Chairman of the JCS.
The above may shed some light on what Celler was getting at, but I am not sure.
And her last husband was gay too! 
Lordy, I remember as if it were yesterday when Diller formed "Hollywood Supports" with Sid Sheinberg (Universal executive -- straight) He was supposed to come out for the cover story that ran for issue #588, October 21, 1991. Everything was ready, then Richard Rouilard got the call. It was Barry from the plane, on his way to Europe. And he wasn't going to do it.
Richard threw every argument in the book at him with lightning speed -- trying his best to talk him down. No go.
"Jeez!" he said to me, exhausted when they finally hung up.
"That was better thatn Karen Black in 'Airport'75'!" I told him.
Then we laughed.
Bitterly.
I tricked once with her ex-huband Egon's boyfriend, Camille.
I think he's dead now.
Jade:
Yeah. And I work with a guy who was medically discharged after breaking his hip fooling around, drunk, jumping off the very top of a supply truck, while on a training mission.
His dad's a cop in Louisville.
Anyhoo Steve is telling me what fun he had making the movie when all of a sudden -- "Oh, excuse me -- HI BARRY!"
And in comes Diller, sidling up to Steve to say hello and then going for the seat Steve had set especially aside for him. Well no sooner was he seated than five drop dead gorgeous men appeared as if out of nowhere -- circling around Diller like bees to honey.
Never did find out which one he went home with that night.
Camille is dead.
Strange, how much we have in common...
On the electricity supplied by a bunch of price gouging oligopolist shit kickers dressed up in gaudy belt buckles and 5K Tony Llamas..
Now you know
During the campaign Bush had on his official website plans for creating an office for faith-based charities.
It was denounced by Howard Philipp's Constitution Party, on its website, as threatening to corrupt the churches.
There's not much to tell, really. I have no information from him re: Egon et al. I was never much interested in that crowd.
And we are registering at Petrossian.
The Moron's Smog & Mirrors Energy "Policy" - Krugman
I'm jealous.
We will probably have the ceremony up there (it legally requires a ceremony) sometime in the spring, as my partner suggests (with some justification) that I would be too distracted by skiing to focus on all the details if we did it during the winter, though we are going up there in a couple of weeks.
Bush's game is to dress up stinkbombs in purty little packages to wit:
1. Chavez, Norton, Ashcroft - stinkbombs
Powell, Whitman, Mineta(grrrr!) purty package
2. Energy Policy - AWNR stinkbomb
Feint to solving CA Energy crisis - purty package
3. Education - Plagiarizes Lieberman Bill - purty packaage
Vouchers - stink bomb
4. God Squad -fundie payola = stink bomb
Help the helpless - purty package
Congratulations, Ronski!
Congratulations, Ronski!
Ohio/Jexster
Krugman/Jexster
JanJon/Jexster
(We may just end up in the Unitarian Church in Burlington, where my brother was married.)
Add my congratulations to those of everyone else, Ronski...I'm happy for you.
The rest of us single, sour, jaded, bitter folk have a political battle on our hands!
A couple of weeks ago, in one of his first statements about the
California energy crisis, George W. Bush placed the blame squarely
on pollution controls: "If there's any environmental regulations
preventing California from having a 100 percent max output at their
plants — as I understand may be — then we need to relax those
standards." But his assertion was swiftly contradicted — not just
by environmentalists and California officials, but by the energy
industry. A spokesman for Houston- based Reliant Energy, which
operates four Southern California plants, told The Los Angeles
Times that assertions that environmental regulations were holding
back power production were "absolutely false."
Nor, apparently, did environmental regulations play much of a role
in California's failure to build new plants in the years since
deregulation. In fact, environmentalists generally favored
deregulation...
Now of course the administration is trying to use California's
woes to sell its plan to drill for oil in the Arctic tundra — a
plan that, if you do the arithmetic ("No fuzzy math!" roared the
crowd), turns out to be virtually irrelevant to our current energy
problems. At best, it might add a few percent to the nation's oil
supply a decade or more from now. But the administration's
enthusiasm for that plan also poses something of a puzzle. It is,
after all, expensive to find and extract oil from the Arctic, even
if you play fast and loose with the environment; so the windfall to
oil companies won't be all that large. Oil industry service
companies, like Dick Cheney's former employer Halliburton, will
reap some immediate benefits; but it's still hard to see why this
should be at the top of the agenda.
Wow....if you go there, can we all join in?
Jex:
Have you ever been to south Texas?
As a rule I try to avoid all things Texas having been conditioned as a Louisiana native to see Texans as crude and uncultured louts
Jex:
GWs volunteer program for polutters has resulted in gray air all over Texas.
And we're not all louts...crude or otherwise.
If the Bush administration is to be believed, the nation's energy woes--including the California power crisis--can be solved by, among other things, drilling for oil in an Alaskan wildlife refuge. That, however, is far from the truth.
Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, President Bush's signature energy cause, would not generate one kilowatt of electricity for California
The operative phrase -
If the Bush Admin is to be believed....
Houston is choking in smog thanks to Bush who, as Krugman notes, has a passion for all things dirty.....
His client, Williams Brothers, is in a snit because of Bush's foul air, their crews are only allowed to build your freeways after 8 and Tom DeLay, against the objections of the Mayors of Sugar Land, Missouri CIty and other SW towns, nixed mass transit funding for Houston which has no light rail....
Know ALL about Texas
You know it seems like just yesterday when Democrats were claiming that Bush's experience as Governor of Texas was worthless since the office had no real power. Now they are claiming that Bush single-handedly caused every ill in Texas since he became Governor. I guess consistency has never been a strong suit for Democrats.
How can Democrats change gear from whining about dependence on foreign oil to trashing the most practical solutions for same? Easy enough. They want to force society into their procrustean cookie cutter (there's some mixed metaphors) concept of life that resembles that of a backward tribesicle in outer Mongolia more than the civilization we enjoy now. It must be some atavistic wish for a short, brutal, disease-ridden existence that Lefties are attempting to foist on us, because that is most certainly where their social policies lead.
Dear President-elect[sic] Bush:
In your victory speech following Vice President Gore's concession, you struck a conciliatory note saying that: "America wants reconciliation and unity...now it is time to find common ground and build consensus." You spoke of beginning the work of healing and said you would be the President of every single American. You have also indicated many times that you would govern from the "center."
The purpose of this letter is to tell you that I believe your selection of former Senator John Ashcroft for Attorney General is not
in keeping with those important principles and the promises you made
to the American people.
Mr President-elect[sic], I have been in elected office for 24 years 18 of those in Congress and I have rarely seen such a genuine
outcry against a nomination from such a broad cross section of the
people of my state.
This nomination is driving a stake into the heart of large numbers of Americans. Rather than heal after a very divisive presidential election, it is deepening the wounds.
I served with Senator Ashcroft for six years, and I have never
had a cross word with him personally. My comments are not personal. They are based on substance.
r
had very broad support in the state where she had served as president
of both the Los Angeles Bar Association and Bar Association of California. She had particularly strong support from Senator Orrin
Hatch and Congressman James Rogan.
Even in the face of such unity, Senator Ashcroft placed a hold
on her nomination, first secretly, and then openly. When we finally
voted in February of 1998, Margaret was confirmed by a vote of
67-28. As a result of Senator Ashcroft's actions, the court was
deprived of an excellent judge for almost two years.
Now I have a suggestion. Please reconsider this nomination.
It is hurting the country and dividing us again.
Should you not reconsider this nomination, I feel it is only fair to tell you that I will oppose it for the following reasons: it is divisive and, given Senator Ashcroft's strict adherence to his ideology, I believe there are solid reasons to expect that the people of this country will not be protected and served as they exercise their civil rights, human rights, consumer rights, their right to choose, their right to be free of gun violence and their right to a clean environment.
I will be happy to speak with you about this or any other
matter.
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
Either he's been tippin the bottle again or he's tried to figure out some basis for supporting what Bush is foisting off as an energy policy!
A policy which the LA Times and Paul Krugman flatly stated was based on lies....
Trying to justify that would kill more brain cells than a quart of grain alcohol.
Long before the term "deregulation" became innfamous, representatives from the electric industry were converging on Los Angeles with one objective: taking over our Department of Water and Power.
They were offering so much money, and the DWP was in such dire financial straits, that it would have been foolish for me not to consider their offers to privatize the city's power supply.
But there is a well-worn credo that successful businessmen follow: When you own something valuable, hold onto it. And that's what the city of Los Angeles did in 1996.... As a result, we have ample power, we haven't raised rates since I took office, and we won't raise rates as long as I'm still mayor.
``It's a staggering amount of money,'' said Larry Makinson, a senior fellow at the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that studies campaign finance. ``Probably the most important thing about it is the people who gave that money are beginning to think about what the return will be.There's almost no limit to the benefits that can be bestowed on the people ho gave that money.''
So let's talk a bit about Hillary's gifts shall we?
NOT
And you all know where I live.
Enough of this crap. A state of 33,000,000 souls, which consistently gives in to the demands of the loony left, refusing to build any more power plants because "there is plenty of power out there to be bought", is an ass.
That's right - California is an ass.
Here's my energy plan for California:
Build 5 fucking nuclear plants, and leave the rest of us alone, you assholes.
...which makes Jexster a dingleberry.
You should read the history of it in the Slow thread. Among other things, you will discover that if we built a nuclear power plant for every person in California, prices could still stay high.
It has nothing to do with our reluctance to build new power plants. In fact, Californians always paid a high price for power because of that reluctance, and never objected. This is not a supply problem.
JJ:
Now they are claiming that Bush single-handedly caused every ill in Texas since he became Governor.
But he did , I thought you realized that...just as every sin commited in DC was done by Clinton.
Ten points to the person who can point out the exquisite irony - the utter hypocricy, in the bolded portion of Jex's post, from Barbara Boxer's wacky letter to President Bush:
I believe there are solid reasons to expect that the people of this country will not be protected and served as they exercise their civil rights, human rights, consumer rights, their right to choose, their right to be free of gun violence...
We all know JZ shares the same favorite "political philosopher" as Curious George.
Big time.
CalGal:
Could you link that dereg stuff over in conversations? I want my sis to read this and think it would be easier to find if it were linked over on the lefthand side...
toycheck
Cal:
I've already read all of that, and pardon me, but it sounds an awful lot like CalGal's version of the history of California's energy crisis - despite the fact that you gave credit to the SF Chron.
I must say, for such an environmentally-conscious race of people, I was astounded at all the things that happened that Californians did not pay attention to. But, if true, I would imagine that most of them also didn't know that they were paying 40% more than the rest of the country.
But the crux of the biscuit, to me, is this: California is, by far, not the only state that deregulated their utilities. Why are they the ones with the problems?
I have all the energy I need, for instance. So basically, California can go piss off.
Pure gobbledygook. While California's power consumption has increased by 12% over the last five years, no new power generation capability has been brought on line. No peaker plants. Nothing. In fact, plants have been dismantled.
Califorlornian politicians are simply going to have to mend their socialist market-interfering ways. No buts about it.
Only a Calimoron could think the above is 'deregulation'. It's different but blatantly anti-free market regulation than had existed before.
It isn't my version of the crisis. Don't be absurd. If you wish to challenge a statement, do so. I can come up with a cite for everything in that history. There is no dispute about the facts, actually.
There are a few facts that contradict your notions: demand is lower, the prices were frozen by the demand of the utility companies, not consumers, and California residents can't switch to a different power supplier. Yes, we did know that our prices were higher.
Oh, and we most assuredly were the first state to deregulate power to an "open" market, and most states have put off plans to follow our lead because they know perfectly well that the disaster we had here would happen anywhere else as well.
I could have saved myself a lot of typing right now by just listing the statements in your posts that were accurate:
I have all the energy I need, for instance.
End of Joe's accurate statements.
Cal:
Deregulation has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with the fact that California has been importing at least 25% of its electricity for years, and it certainly isn't responsible for the rate cap.
The power California buys is produced by hydroelectric plants. Of all people, Californians should know better than anyone the unreliability of such a source -in fact, one of the main arguments for building more power plants has been "What if Oregon couldn't - or wouldn't - sell us power?"
Pshaw!, has been the reply - Oregon's got plenty of extra power, and the ability to increase the supply when needed.
True - except when, as sometimes happens, they experience lower-than-normal rainfall and/or snowfall...which is exactly what happened last year, and why they could not deliver.
If California had enough power plants of their own, they would not be in this fix. Even Gov. Davis tacitly admits this when, in pleading for help, he explains that even if building is restarted on abandoned power plants, it will take at least 2 years for them to be operable.
The utility companies are responsible for the rate cap. I'm assuming that has sunk in by now. But probably not.
Who cares if we've been importing power? That has nothing to do with the high prices.
If California had enough power plants of their own, they would not be in this fix.
Untrue. Gray Davis is incorrect, as are most other people who say that this would solve the problem.
Cal:
You want to overcomplicate the matter.
There is a power shortage in Cal.
There would not be one if they could buy their fix from Oregon.
They would not need to buy power from Oregon if they had their own.
Power consumption has increased in California dramatically in the last 20 years. Everyone knew it, and that is why they started building power plants.
But the envirowackos - in the gov't and at large - put the kaibosh on that.
Let's take a new poll, and see how many Californians don't want any new plants now.
Who cares if we've been importing power? That has nothing to do with the high prices.
I don't see where I said it did.
No, actually, there isn't. Not in the sense you mean. Put another way, even if California could provide all of its own power, they would still be having the same problem. It has nothing to do with our ability to provide power or not.
There would not be one if they could buy their fix from Oregon.
Yes, there would.
They would not need to buy power from Oregon if they had their own.
Irrelevant, since there'd be a power shortage either way.
Power consumption has increased in California dramatically in the last 20 years.
Actually, over the last six. But in any event, power consumption is lower this year than last year, when we had no catastrophe. The shortage is not because of consumption.
But the envirowackos - in the gov't and at large - put the kaibosh on that.
Let's take a new poll, and see how many Californians don't want any new plants now.
The first is generally untrue, and actually Californians still aren't all that enthused about power plants. They would rather cut demand. You are foolish indeed if you think this hasn't already been polled.
6010. JadeGold1 - 1/31/01 9:52:53 PM
My, my.
We all know JZ shares the same favorite "political philosopher"
as Curious George.
Big time.
So, obviously you didn't get it. It has absolutely nothing to do with my views (or GWB's) on abortion.
Try again, moron.
You mentioned the rate cap, which many people wrongly believe has something to do with the current situation.
Let me say this again: the power shortage is not due to high demand. It is not due to the fact that we don't create all of our own power.
Whether this is true or not, you can't claim that a system with fixed prices has been deregulated. It doesn't matter who asked for the regulation, it is still regulation and it is responsible for the power problems in CA.
It is true. And I've never claimed that it was deregulated. It was the utility companies that demanded it not be deregulated. BTW, Britain is deregulated and they still have high power costs.
It doesn't matter who asked for the regulation, it is still regulation and it is responsible for the power problems in CA.
Not true. The regulation is responsible for the fact that the utility companies are running out of money. The regulation has nothing to do with the high prices, and the high prices have nothing to do with demand.
And I'm taking Spawn out for lasagne, be back in a bit.
It is not a decrease in supply capability, but rather a deliberate manipulation of supply. A manipulation, mind you, that isn't illegal.
Cal:
Horseshit.
Follow this:
California buys hydropower from Oregon. Not "sometimes". It is built into the system. Last year, Oregon (and all of the Pacific Northwest), had an unusually dry year. Hence, they had no reserve power to sell to California. Maybe if PG&E hadn't been "deregulated", it would've rained and snowed more out that way - I don't know. But I'll ask my brother - he's a meteorologist.
So, you can quibble -it's NOT a demand problem. I guess you're right, as long as a few little things - such as the weather - stay constant. But not really, since it is by no means Oregon's responsibility to supply power to a state that refuses to produce enough of its own.
Well..yes, Cal. The rate cap DOES indeed have much to do with the problem. If the utilities could charge what they have to pay to import from other sources, they would not be in the financial trouble they're in.
There are many other sources to import from, but none will sell to a utility that's on the brink of bankrupcy.
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush (news - web sites), apparently unaware he was speaking on an open microphone, offered some unguarded comments Wednesday about Republican opposition to his plan for allowing parents to take their children out of failing schools.
``It's a battle. It's a problem politically,'' Bush said. ``There are a lot of Republicans who don't like vouchers. They come from wealthy suburban districts who are scared to death of irritating the public school movement, and their schools are good.''
... before journalists were escorted in, someone activated an audio feed from Bush's microphone to the White House press briefing room.
One participant introduced himself as a Floridian. Bush's brother Jeb is the Florida governor and was at the center of the five-week dispute over that state's punch-card ballots and their chads.
``I'm about to name my brother the ambassador to Chad,'' Bush joked.
Apparently unaware his remarks were being heard, Bush cast himself to the bishops, priests and nuns as staring down fierce opposition to his plan to provide government grants to help parents take their children out of failing schools.
Bush said the controversy ``is like the abortion issue. I mean, there is a kind of a built-in prejudice against a particular position on both sides on both issues.''
Returning to the voucher question, Bush said: ``There's serious, serious heat on Capitol Hill, and it's not only from the Democrats. The Republicans won't yell it, but they'll whisper it. The Democrats will yell it.''
it's NOT a demand problem.
If its not a DEMAND problem, then its a SUPPLY problem...a supply problem created by an oligopoly moving toward Nash equilibrium to be technical.
In laymen's terms, its a limited group of wholesalers including 3 big contributors to BOTUS that are piggin out charging rates 14,000% higher on average than last year.
All the while the publically owned LA Dept of Water and power hasn't raised electrical rates or suffered any Stage III alerts (or alerts at any stage) for the past 8 years.
Rip that Moron Cal!
NOT a problem of environmental regs (Reliant Energy's CEO kaboshed that BushShit)
NOT a problem that has a friggin thing to do with drilling ANWR
....from today's LA Times
As utilities have been deregulated, more and more electricity is bought, sold and delivered as a commodity over ever-increasing distances and from state to state. That has put an unanticipated strain on transmission systems that were initially designed to be self-contained.
As with California's shortage of power generation, its transmission woes are a simple case of energy demand having outpaced the infrastructure to supply it. Electricity use in the last decade has grown twice as fast as new transmission capacity.
* A dry fall and winter have caused a precipitous drop in hydroelectric generation in the Pacific Northwest, normally a source of power for California. That has forced Northern California to import electricity from the southern half of the state, exposing the bottleneck at Path 15.
No mention of manipulation of supply, Cal.
Now, I won't pretend this article holds the utilities blameless, but it does make clear the fact that there are many, many factors entirely out of the control of the electric companies that are contributing to their inability to supply enough power to the state. And most of those have to do with opposition to their building not only power plants, but transmission lines.
Jex:
There has been a marked increase in the the shrillness and out-and-out lunacy of your posts, commensurate with the outstanding efficiency and deftness with which President George W. Bush has conducted the business of our great country since taking over from your hero.
What, exactly, is the point of your last 3 posts?
Jesus, people, toys.
Cal:
Anyway, I really don't see how you can argue that it's not a demand problem. In fact, I don't see the point in arguing that.
1. There have been no new major plants built in 10 years.
2. California's population has increased tremendously in that time, and DEMAND has grown over 30%.
3. Even before then, the deficiencies in the power grid - both in energy production and transmission - were recognized, with predictions that exactly what has happened, would.
4. The power companies tried to build new plants - actually started to build some, but were prevented from doing so.
5. They also tried to improve the antiquated transmission system -most notably Path 15 in power-poor NoCal, which is the nexus for the most crucial transmissions - those from power-rich SoCal, but were prevented from doing so several times, from a bunch of people who think that the high-power lines will interfere with their natural karma or something. Ironically, as time has passed, the population all around this crucial junction has exploded even more so than in the rest of the state, virtually assuring that it will never be fixed.
So, to the extent that the power companies have failed to overcome opposition to doing what needed to be done to provide enough power, I guess you can say that it is a supply problem.
I'll give you that.
You have consistently ignored what I am saying. It doesn't matter how many power stations are built. It doesn't matter where we get the power from. They will all engage in legal price gouging. And demand is down from last year.
Cal:
Demand is down, what - 6%? BFD - you guys import 25% from Oregon, which couldn't deliver. That's a net loss of 19%.
And what the hell does price-gouging, legal or not, have to do with anything? Are millions of households withholding their electric payments? Is that why the utilities are billions of $ in debt, and so unable to buy power from other states?
I'm off to bed. G'nite.
Because they are manipulating the price. The price is high because of price gouging, not because of unusual demand. Haven't you read anything about this? The power companies admit that this is what they are doing--it makes good business sense, after all. Why shouldn't they do what they legally can to get the highest price for their product?
But what it means is that Californians could reduce their power demands by 90% and the power companies could still gouge them by ensuring that their supply is lower. As I said: demand is irrelevant. They can always make sure the supply is less.
BFD - you guys import 25% from Oregon, which couldn't deliver.
No, that's not true. We import from all over. We have an arrangement with Oregon that the utility companies took advantage of when their cash flow was short.
There is nothing wrong with importing, btw. It certainly benefits other states, usually. The problem is that they don't want to sell now because the utility companies can't pay. They can't pay because they demanded price controls that ended up hurting them. But the high prices that exceeded the price controls weren't caused by excessive consumer demand, but manipulated supply.
California isn't insisting that Kaiser Aluminum lay people off to supply us with power. They don't have to. They choose to, because it is more profitable.
It's more profitable because even if they sell at offpeak hours and even if they aren't gouging themselves, they will benefit from the outrageously high prices.
Cal:
(from the LA Times article):
Electricity use in the last decade has grown twice as fast as new transmission capacity.
...Because electricity is an interstate commodity, grid operations are overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which restricts the profit that utilities make on new transmission projects to an annual average of 9% on investment. Such returns pale in comparison with the 15% to 20% utilities can earn on other, unregulated investments.
Demand problem, plain and simple.
Perhaps being in the midst of the problem - indeed, in the middle of one of the bigger battlefields - serves to skew your objectivity on this, as is somewhat evidenced by jexster's(!) wholehearted support for your position.
Or perhaps Californians don't see their have-it-both-ways, as-long -as-it's-not-in-my-back-yard-ism as "their" problem.
So it appears you need an education: ,
If the "power summit" now scheduled for this week had happened a year ago, one could reasonably have expected a compromise along the lines of the latter alternative — that is, a compromise that, without trying to wish the shortage away, tries to limit the damage to consumers and the windfall profits to producers. But George W. Bush doesn't just have an ideological attachment to free markets; he has close personal ties to some of the companies that are making such huge profits in California right now.
Mr. Bush has been conspicuously silent on the California crisis. But in the end it's his decision. Will he help California find an answer that does not involve paying a huge ransom to his friends?
And that answer now is plain. No he's going to let his friends in Texas continue to charge 14,000% more for power than last year.
For JoeZ apparently facts that get in the way of his argument are to be ignored. To most of us, it should be the argument that perishes in the face of contradictory fact...but that's never been JoeZ's MO
Long term supply problems also result from a failure of private markets in two ways.
First, the electricity companies themselves. In FACT (those messy facts again), Cal has often pointed out that the utiltity companies themselves thought that supply would so exceed demand at this time that the UTLITIES supported a rate freeze which would, they thought, result in large profits while, at the same time, they sold their power generating plants profiting from these as well, plants that ratepayers had already paid for in large part. The UTLIITIES first spun of the generating assets into subsidiaries leaving their distribution net in another sub. Its those subs that are now facing bankruptcy, having LOST the bargain that their parent companies supported.
Again a supply problem and a failur of the so-called free market system, a system that anyone who knows anything about economics knows is not competitive but, particularly in the case of wholesale power generation, is oligopolistic ie a small number of players playing supply games with an eye to price gouging profits.
The only thing the State asked for, the only thing the state needs from Bush is a wholesale price cap to stop the gouging by his Texas buddies. The California Congressional delegation both democrat and republican unanimously asked Bush for that relief and Bush said "Drop Dead"
We don't need Nanny Warbuck's Sham Task Force.,...Nobody needs ANWR drilling which will do nothing for CA's electrical problems...Nobody needs any relief from environmental regs...Nobody needs Bush's lies, lies confirmed by the CEO of Reliant Energy of all people
And the Republicans in the Assembly have a good argument, when I can't pay my utility bill because the price gouging of George Bush's Texas buddies is being passed on to me, will the State pay MY bill or give me a loan to do it?
The bill's supporters, mostly Democrats, planned to take another vote later, hoping to win over Republican opponents in the meantime.
Several Republican lawmakers took issue with a provision in the legislation that would let the state Public Utilities Commission raise electricity rates to repay the state for its power purchases.
To encourage conservation, residential customers who use 30 percent
more energy than a baseline specified by regional climate and energy use would be punished with higher rates.
``It is clear this will result in a rate increase,'' Republican Assemblyman Rod Pacheco said. ``We are not voting for a rate increase.''
Now ain't that some shit!
Elect Repugs and you'll pay for it down the road.
For now, let me just point out that deregulation, too, was based on the belief that we had transcended the old limitations — in the age of the Internet we no longer had to worry about the generation and transmission bottlenecks that had always prevented a workable free market in electricity, that had made regulation necessary to prevent abuses of market power. Now California has learned to its cost — $8 billion and counting — that those old limitations still apply.
What a difference a year makes. Last December everyone who mattered
believed in magic — the magic of technology, the magic of the free
market. Now it's back to dreary reality. Happy New Year.
Boogie on JoeZ
And they've helped create a crisis whose economic and ecological shock waves will carry deep into the new century.
The roots of this unnatural disaster lie in the corporate boardrooms of the utility companies now on the brink of bankruptcy. It was their mismanagement and greed that led directly to some of the greatest miscalculations in US business history. Those missteps, and their impact, were clearly predicted by consumer and environmental activists, who fought to prevent them. "This was a catastrophe we all saw coming," says Dan Berman, co-author of Who Owns the Sun? "But the power companies had an agenda to push and the money to foist it on the public. Now we all reap the whirlwind."
In Depth
Ahhhh "free" markets!
In one of his boo-boos yesterday, he spilled a few beans about what is really behind his handlers' FBO initiative: CUTTING DOWN ON ABORTIONS. (Translates to: CUT DOWN ON RIGHT TO CHOOSE.)
From Slate's summary today of the news in leading newspapers:
"The WSJ reports that yesterday, without realizing that his remarks
were being broadcast on a feed to some White House reporters,
President Bush told the heads of some Catholic charities that his
faith-based social services initiative was linked to his goal of
curtailing abortions, a connection he did not make when he
announced the initiative earlier this week. During the same
meeting, reporters were also able to hear Bush say that his plans
for federal funding for school vouchers may not succeed because a
lot of Republicans don't like them. Online, the NYT carries an AP
dispatch about the same meeting, which plays the voucher comment
and Bush's joke that he's about to name his brother Jeb
ambassador to Chad above the abortion comment."
Yes, I'm in the swing of things on this thread.
Poopstain
Poopstain
Poopstain
Poopstain
POOPSTAIN!
i read that as well and then looked it up - i don't see what the fuss TP has with the actual article:
But before journalists were escorted in, someone activated an audio feed from Bush's microphone to the White House press briefing room.
One participant introduced himself as a Floridian. Bush's brother Jeb is the Florida governor and was at the center of the five-week dispute over that state's punch-card ballots and their chads.
``I'm about to name my brother the ambassador to Chad,'' Bush joked.
Apparently unaware his remarks were being heard, Bush cast himself to the bishops, priests and nuns as staring down fierce opposition to his plan to provide government grants to help parents take their children out of failing schools.
Bush said the controversy ``is like the abortion issue. I mean, there is a kind of a built-in prejudice against a particular position on both sides on both issues.''
Returning to the voucher question, Bush said: ``There's serious, serious heat on Capitol Hill, and it's not only from the Democrats. The Republicans won't yell it, but they'll whisper it. The Democrats will yell it.''
now, i don't subscribe to the WSJ, so maybe they had more damning evidence.
Frankie - go sulk somewhere else, if you are going to flit around like that.
Look, you and your poopstains can bitch and scream about the poopstainy poopstains of your poopstain liberal poopstainery, BUT WE WON!!!!!! Ha ha ha. Poopstain, poopstain, poopstain!
well, if that's it - i just don't see the problem. he didn't say anything about 'curtailing abortions'.
Republicans have always tried to reduce the number of abortions. This isn't news. I can't imagine why anyone would NOT want to cut down the number of abortions. Unless you happen to LIKE the thought of killing babies.
I can think of reasons. Holding everything else equal, I'm in favor of a huge increase in abortions.
With apologies to Aaron Copland, c'mon and sing along with me: "T'was a gift to the Simple, T'was a gift for he from five of us we"
The rest of the lines remain murky, but as time goes on will be filled in.
Oh shut up, you whining poopstain. It's a gift that keeps on giving.
Did I say . . .
POOPSTAIN.
The survey, sponsored by the Federalist Society and The Wall Street Journal, also showed that Reagan ranked overall as eighth among 42 presidents, putting him in the "great" category. A separate survey last year of 58 presidential historians, sponsored by C-SPAN, rated Reagan 11th, the highest of any president in the past three decades.
Of course it is. Do you ask an pregnant woman, "How's the fetus today?" Does she say, "Oh, the fetus kept me up all night." Semantics aren't going to help you here. It is a baby whether you want to call it that or not. Not everyone is willing to stick their head in the sand and pretend a baby isn't really baby.
Reagan great? What a laugh.
Reagan aware of what was being done in his name? Laugh again.
By the way, your logic on why a fetus should be deemed to be a baby is more than just specious.
The biggest laugh of all.
I say again: those folks who mouth pieties about reducing abortion (on both sides) are generally denying reality.
Holding all other things equal, more abortions is preferable.
Cal: The same argument(s) I expect you would make to support such a position would also generally be valid for mandatory sterilizations. Right?
Do you really believe that, say, a fetus two/three/four/five/six etc. weeks after conception is a baby? (which, of course, then gets us into the baby's so-called rights, eh?)
Let me put it succinctly - bunch of wingnut crap.
Until you acknowledge that abortions are not "killing babies", there's really not much point in discussing it with you. I'm just saying that once you discuss abortions honestly--which you don't--there are excellent reasons for wanting more of them.
Indy,
Sterilization is permanent. Puts it in a whole different ballpark.
Really, since when is a fetus the exact same thing as a baby? Since when does the dictionary identify fetus and baby as synonyms?
It is one thing to hold, for religious or personal moral reasons, that a fetus should be granted the same rights as a baby. It is another thing to purposefully confuse the two terms.
Some people simply believe that women are livestock.
Congratulations, Ronski. Enjoy the planning, enjoy the event and thereafter just enjoy.
In other words I have to just accept your position before you are willing to discuss it. Sorry, abortions do kill babies whether you want to admit it or not.
I'm just saying that once you discuss abortions honestly--which you don't--there are excellent reasons for wanting more of them.
I am being honest. I am not the one trying to ignore the ugliness of abortion by pretending that there isn't a human life involved. I can't think of any reason why we would want to end human life before it is born.
Sorry I mentioned W's little boo-boo yesterday.
If we're going to argue utility rather than conflicting sets of rights (and abortion as a policy, rather than an individual decision), I think we're more likely to see congruence in the resulting discussion.
Not for the person having the abortion. Which, like it or not, is all that matters in the analogy.
JJ,
No, you don't have to accept my position. You have to realize that it is not worth discussing unless you accept that my position is also the legal reality.
And no, you aren't being honest. I'm not in denial. I am saying that the combination of two things: a) abortion is legal and b) all other factors equal means that there is an excellent argument for increasing abortions. If you can't remove yourself from your own values, which have nothing to do with legality, then you won't be able to discuss it.
And you are wrong, incidentally. The arguments aren't the same at all. But even if they were, it would make no difference, because you can't equate sterilization and abortion.
That is, for the fetus (or baby, whichever one wishes to call it) the abortion is both involuntary and permanent. So to create a distinction between the two, we're back to where we started from.
I assume that Cal's statement that more abortions is preferable must be talking about on a social rather than individual level. And I'm guessing that more mandatory sterilizations would be arguable on the same grounds for society's benefit.
But we don't go for such reasons because of the rights of individuals, leading me to the conclusion that before we can use them to justify abortions we have to first clarify the rights question--i.e., whether fetuses have rights--or change course and say that society's wants and needs should also trump individual rights in the sterilization issue as well.
A fetus is not a baby. It is also not a meaningless clump of cells. It is not something akin to a toenail clipping. But it is not a baby.
There is a fundamental flaw in your thinking. I am not saying that abortions should be forced.
In the hopes that you can get beyond this, how about equating abortions to providing women extra money if they opt for sterilization?
To put it as succinctly as I can, before making any other argument about abortion, you have to decide the personhood question first.
You can't discuss it without defining this most fundamental term because that's pretty much going to decide the ballgame as far as you're concerned.
Strict social utility has to be within the constraints of individual rights. Morality is, of course, irrelevant, since it can't be shared.
Nonsense. The personhood question is irrelevant. What is relevant is that abortion is legal (taking as obvious that it is legal because the answer to the personhood question is "no").
Hitler's Final Solution was also a legal reality. Lynching blacks in the South was also a legal reality. You wouldn't expect me to just accept those things, would you?
If you can't remove yourself from your own values, which have nothing to do with legality, then you won't be able to discuss it.
You are right. I can't remove myself from my values nor would I ever try. If we remove ourselves from our values we can start discussing the benefits of euthanasia, infantcide, and genocide. I am not willing to do that.
I didn't say you weren't welcome to your opinions. I said that it is not worth discussing it with you, based on your inability to see it any other way.
If we remove ourselves from our values we can start discussing the benefits of euthanasia, infantcide, and genocide.
When euthanasia, infanticide and genocide become legal, you are quite correct. We can do that. Until then, what we do is accept the fact that you can't get beyond your values, and that's fine. But what isn't fine is your blanket declaration that "of course" we want to reduce abortions. No, there is no "of course" about it, speaking as a policy issue (which you were).
My mistake. I didn't realize there were people who could divorce themselves from their humanity.
Cal: I understand that. In abortion, the fetus is the "forced" party. So suppose you want to make a "social utility" argument in favor of abortion (that is, all things being held equal, more abortions would be socially beneficial).
You either have to say A) social utility outweighs individual rights, or B) a fetus isn't an individual and thus doesn't have those rights.
If you say A, then I will say your social utility argument can be used to support mandatory sterilization. If you say B, then I think we're right back where we started: is a fetus a person?
Thus, I think if we agree that mandatory sterilization is a bad thing, then social utility won't get us anywhere because we still can't bypass the big question.
And I have no problem--unless someone can convince me otherwise because I haven't thought too deeply about it--with paying women (or men) to opt for sterilization...so obviously I don't equate it with abortion (which I do have a problem with).
great stuff!
I don't have to differentiate. The law says that an early-term fetus is not a baby.
Myself, I think that a fetus legal rights begins when it can survive outside the womb. Plenty of people disagree with that, and I find their position just as abhorrent as you find mine. Of course, I am on more solid ground because the law tends to agree with me on the fetus' legal rights, whereas you are way out in left field.
let us move on.
Your arguments are irrelevant. The law says the fetus isn't a person. It is that simple. The fact that you disagree doesn't matter.
Social utility does take individual rights into question. An early term fetus is not a person, not an individual, and has no rights. Why? Because the law says so.
You seem to have missed the premise of my statement that more abortions are good: all other things being equal. "All other things" includes the law of the land.
You can take that or leave that. But you can't then argue about the law of the land, because that's one of the premises.
And as usual you run from direct questions. This is not the first time you refused to distinguish between a fetus and a baby. This isn't the first time you have refused to defend any of your positions. You just assert them and insult anyone who disagrees with you. It is no wonder you are a Democrat.
Actually, I think we are doing an elegant job of avoiding the same old debate, despite fervent attempts to drag us in.
I do think that from the moment of conception you have a unique human being (just at a very early stage of development) who the universe has never seen the like of before and will never see the like of again. Nevertheless, I also think a woman has more to say about that person until delivery than I or society does.
So my opinion is that abortion should be discouraged and looked on as wrong. But I'm not prepared to say that my opinion should force or control an individual woman's ability to make decisions about her own body in accordance with her own morality. Social utility arguments do bother me, however, because they smack of exactly the opposite: allowing a greater, group-defined morality (or "good") to interfere with an individual's choice.
(And intrinsically I am uncomfortable with the notion that the world is a better place by keeping it to those who got here first for as long as possible and for as few of us as we can.)
This is nonsense. You just said that you feel abortion is wrong and should be discouraged (even while being legal). That is allowing a greater group-defined morality to interfere with an individual's choice.
It also has jack to do with social utility, unless I've been using the wrong definition all these years.
Running away? nah. Just using my intelligence and common sense and not getting embroiled in a futile effort.
A fetus is an unborn, non-breathing, developing member of the human species (for the point of our discussion, but also any vertebrate), usually from three months to just prior to delivery, but sometimes also applied to a human embryo (prior to three months).
There is a distinction between baby and fetus, and an important one.
We can then discuss personhood, which takes us immediately to the realm of metaphysics.
You have an interesting value system.
JJ:
You are right. I can't remove myself from my values nor would I ever try. If we remove ourselves from our values we can start discussing the benefits of euthanasia, infantcide, and genocide. I am not willing to do that.
If you feel this strongly about values, how can you support Ashcroft, who has stated he is willing to set aside his values to follow the law of the land?
You start with an equally rockhard premise: fetus is not a baby therefore has no rights and may be killed without regard. I am at least willing to defend my beliefs. I don't just assert them then run for cover when I am questioned.
Lets see - you believe, period, that a fetus=baby. No questions asked. No give on that one, nossirree. And, gee, those who disagree get characterized as being inhuman, in favor of killing human beings, and...worst cut of all from your perspective....of being a Democrat.
Man, you are one constipated dude.
nah.
I don't have the need to feel like I've "won", Biener. You do.
So a baby isn't a baby until it starts to breathe? What about a newborn who is unable to breathe on its own? Does that count or not?
If it can survive outside a womans body, it's a baby; if it can't it's not.
Most certainly a baby on a respirator is a baby. A fetus in a womb is not.
Cal: I thought about that, yet see two distinctions: 1) by not seeking to make it illegal, I'm not interfering with an individual's choice. But I certainly still have a right as an individual to disagree. And by saying my argument is based in my personal morality, I clearly am not implying that one ought to behave as I wish for the "greater good of the group." Rather, I'm saying that every individual--even one not yet born--has those same rights. It seems instead to me that the contrary argument is to believe in an individual rights when an individual wishes to have an abortion, but in no individual's right to express the contrary opinion (that abortion is wrong). 2) And again, the social utility argument would ignore the question of individual rights entirely (which is contrary to pro-abortion's strongest card).
Re your later post about social utility: It's just as likely I'm misusing the term, but you haven't yet clarified why you think more abortions are good. I just assumed you would say because of beneficial effects on society.
Yes, Ronski, I agree...a miscarriage at 7 weeks of pregnancy is not a baby.
Yes.
No questions asked.
On the contrary, I have asked a lot of questions and done a fair amount of research to come up with my position.
No give on that one, nossirree.
I don't belive that being firm in my convictions is a bad thing. I am not going to change my mind because someone disagrees with my position. If you can present some compelling reason why I should change, I will consider it. So far all you've done is stamp your feet and demand that fetus is not a baby. I don't find that very convincing.
And, gee, those who disagree get characterized as being inhuman, in favor of killing human beings, and...worst cut of all from your perspective....of being a Democrat.
I don't believe you would have a problem characterizing a person who advocates genocide as inhuman. As far as being a Democrat, you expect your position to be accepted on faith. That sounds like a Democrat to me.
Assisted or unassisted? How do you know before its born?
What about in transition? At what point does its status change?
I object to back-room butchers and the deaths of young women as well. I just don't see allowing abortion as the answer. Keep in mind that those back-room butchers existed because of the stigma attached to unwed mothers. I think it is safe to say that stigma no longer exists. Also birth control is far more available than it was in 1970.
JJ:
Assisted or unassisted? How do you know before its born?
Have you ever heard of a "baby" being born six weeks from conception and living, assisted or otherwise? I haven't.
But I have miscarried 6 weeks into a pregnancy....have you?....and what I saw was not a baby. (Pardon me being so crude as to bring the personal into this but I see no other way of making a point to you.)
We lost a baby at 22 weeks. It was definitely a baby.
Not yet. 20 years ago a baby born at 26 weeks could not survive. Now they can. I am uncomfortable with defining one's humanity based on the current level of technology.
What happens in 10 years if there are medical advances which allow babies at 6 weeks to live outside the womb? Should that change are definition of what is and isn't human?
Yes it does.
JJ:
I'm sorry to hear that...I wasn't trying to be flippant. To me, it was not at 6 weeks. Maybe that's what I tell myself to make it easier to accept but I doubt I'll change my mind, just as you no doubt won't change yours.
Today's e-mail SPAM:
DUBYAWON | NOWAYBUD
Just saw a clip of Phil Gramm speaking about the Ashcroft vote...Phil Gramm has to be the biggest blowhard in that room today.
Me, too...I'm sending it to my hubby right now!
I am certain that if abortion were outlawed tomorrow, the butchers would return and women would die.
In fact, it is this very reason that compels me to support abortion rights (the right to procure one, not the so-called right to force someone else to pay for it). If there is an interest on erring on the side of saving a human life, it should be an actual human life (a woman), rather than a potential human life (a fetus).
And again, the social utility argument would ignore the question of individual rights entirely (which is contrary to pro-abortion's strongest card).
This is absurd. Abortion is legal, but not mandatory. JJ said that obviously we want to limit the amount of abortions. I said, no, there are excellent reasons to support an increase in abortions. There is no reasonable way in which you can interpret that to be a mandate on abortions.
It seems instead to me that the contrary argument is to believe in an individual rights when an individual wishes to have an abortion, but in no individual's right to express the contrary opinion (that abortion is wrong).
This, too, is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. I have said nothing about your right to object to abortions. You said that social utility meant imposing the morality of many on the few (and I am reasonably sure it doesn't mean any such thing); I then pointed out the hypocrisy of your statement about abortions being wrong in light of that opinion.
Please try to stay focused on this simple case: I have said it is foolish to think that increasing the number of abortions could not be considered a good thing, all other things being equal.
All things being equal means that mandating abortion, the personhood of the fetus, and your personal dislike of abortion are all completely irrelevant.
erratum: "...an interest in erring..."
I agree, but it is the pro-abortion crowd who is calling for the state to decide. They want the state to pick a date before which a pregnancy can be terminated. They want the state to decide when the baby becomes a person. My position is that the state should protect all human life and not try to decide. The only way that can happen is if they protect that life from conception.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A sharply divided Senate confirmed conservative John Ashcroft as attorney general on Thursday with an overwhelming majority of Democrats voting against him.
With solid backing from the Senate's 50 Republicans and a handful of Democrats, Ashcroft won approval from a majority of the lawmakers to be the nation's top law enforcer.
...
Ashcroft's confirmation vote underscored the division in the Senate and sent a pair of mixed messages to the new president.
Senate Republicans saw the vote as a signal to Bush that they can deliver the votes he needs in support of his nominees as well as for pending legislation.
Democrats said they intended to send a message to Bush that he should expect a tough fight any time he offers such a conservative nominee as Ashcroft and that next time it could be tougher.
JJ:
But that is impossible to decide...are you saying it is a BABY from the very moment of conception?
Democrats said they intended to send a message to Bush that he should expect a tough fight any time he offers such a conservative nominee as Ashcroft and that next time it could be tougher.
...and then 7 or 8 of them will fold and give Bush what he wants, anyhow.
Ashcroft vote: 58-42
I respect your position, though I largely disagree with it. I have been arguing against the propagandizing of the debate by misusing words that have clear meanings.
I strongly object to calling someone who terminates the development of a zygote a baby killer. And a lot of people who are uncomfortable with late-term abortions would agree with me on this.
I hope the law catches up with us someday -- and provides us the legal protections and responsibilities it gives to married couples.
I am saying that it should be protected from conception because to do otherwise would be to arbitrarily decide when that life becomes human. There is no question that from the moment of conception the individual is alive. It is growing, engaging in cell division, using energy, the things that make something alive. From that point there is an uninterrupted continuum through birth and ending death. The individual has a full and unique set of human chromosomes. To me if something is alive and is genetically human, it is human. It may not look like it yet, but given time it will. I have a hard time when people say it is a person at point X, but it is not human an instant before that. The only identifiable point in time where that holds true is conception. Any other point is arbitrary. I can't agree with an arbitrary decision on when life begins.
congratulations and happy anniversary....
I strongly object to calling someone who opposes racial quotas and set-asides a racist. Unfortunately, some people don't respond to less emotional terms.
GJ:
Happy day...and days ahead.
Congratulations. I hope you can make legal one day as well.
For instance, it starts off with this premise (nah, make that ironclad truth, from the author's perspective): "There is no question that from the moment of conception the individual is alive." Not without the putative mother's "assistance".
Although I don't think it is dispositive as to when it might be acceptable to limit a woman's right to have an abortion, surely many anti-abortionists would agree that life doesn't begin until it is sustainable independently of the putatuve mother.
I am just now reading my paper and ran across a story about Bush speaking with Roman Catholic leaders in private without knowing the meeting was being aired to the White House Press Room...he said some very interesting things in that meeting but I can't find a link to it in my on-line paper...anyone have a link to this story?
Because he just sent Ari F. out there during the Ashcroft vote to tell the press he never made a statement being attributed to that meeting...I'd really like to know which statement he means.
Samples:
Bush told the Catholic leaders they are important allies for him because "you're not going to be eroded by political correctness or whatever."
Bush said there is "serious, serious heat on Capitol Hill" against his voucher plan. "And it's not only from the Democrats. The Republicans won't yell it but they will whisper it. The Democrats will yell it."
Here's more of the Private Bush:
"Vouchers is the wrong word. It ought to be opportunity scholarships or freedom initiaves or something. But you know how it is."
He also said "those of us who agree on these issues must figure out better ways to position from a PR perspective."
Message # 6147
Well put.
janjon:
Thanks...I came in here late today and didn't mean to rehash stuff...the abortion debate was well under way when I checked in...
But it just goes to show...truthful is as truthful does.
I seem to recall when Bush said the press wouldn't know everything that went on in the White House...heh heh.
On Bushisms, it sounds like that article is full of them. My SIL got one into Slate the other day. I haven't looked at that site in awhile and haven't seen it.
That makes at least 42 bigoted self-referring Lefty idiots in the Senate. There's no such thing as being 'too conservative' or even 'too liberal' to enforce laws one does not agree with if one isn't grotesquely twisted by ideology.
This is nonsensical. For instance according to your 'reasoning', a hypothetical woman who died and had a live baby delivered by C-section would have that baby's humanity being dependent on her loss of life.
This example alone shows how your arbitrary definition of humanity is garbage.
The president, the cross and the cookie jar...Molly Ivins...
Trying to keep money given to religious organizations from being used for proselytizing is hopeless; money is fungible, a wonderful word meaning `interchangeable.' If you give money to a church for one purpose, that in turn helps fund the church's other purposes since, obviously, it has more money.
Those of you who know "Christians afire" -- those who cannot stop witnessing -- will not be surprised to learn that they will, in all good faith, set up, say, an employment training program based on the premise that once you have been born again, you're automatically more employable. One state-supported program in Brenham used to meet two nights a week, one for Bible study and the other for job skills.
This abortion thing really brings out the worst and cheapest shot. The one which stands out today is JJ's in countering CalGal's statement that abortions are in fact legal:
Hitler's Final Solution was also a legal reality. Lynching blacks in the South was also a legal reality.
Here he puts on equal footing laws (but actually there never was any law concerning the Final Solution) enacted by one of the worst and most vicious dictatorships in history with those of a democratic society, a society some claim to be the most democratic on earth.
Second he says that lynchings were legal when the very term "lynching" defines an illegal mob action.
Well, if it ain't the human bowel, Sphincter. You can rest assured that there will never be a 'knock in the night' for US citizens with Ashcroft as AG, unlike your favorite, Stooge Reno, the worst AG in history. The one who deals with religious communities by burning them to the ground with everybody inside, including little babies. I absolutely abhor the crimes against humanity that come with Socialist ideas.
After being shot at by said 'officers' which never had any business being there. And there was no earthly reason to have tanks there either. Federal actions re. Waco screamed 'police state' abuse of power, IAC.
You know and I know that the Feds were there with the full intention of applying excessive and inexcusable force. You simply cannot justify their mass slaughter of the innocent people inside the compound.
And don't you think having a few dozen machine guns in the house gives the cops "business for being there"?
If you start with the premise that an unborn child is human and alive (which I do) then any laws which allow abortion is on a equal footing with any laws that allow innocent life to be killed legally. The society which enacted that law is irrelevant. A democratic society does not mean that every action it takes is good. Also in the US abortion is legal by means of judicial fiat, not by way of the democratic process.
Second he says that lynchings were legal when the very term "lynching" defines an illegal mob action.
Lynchings were not prosecuted in the South, thus they were a legal reality.
I would never have brought lethal force anywhere close to the compound. They were not threatening their neighbors or, apparently, abusing each other. They should have been waited out, if not indefinitely, for much longer than they were before any action was seriously considered.
Wow.
Just because I pointed out that Ashcroft will not abuse his office like Reno did? Tsk tsk.
That makes at least 42 bigoted self-referring Lefty idiots in the Senate. There's no such thing as being 'too conservative'
What makes them bigoted? What makes them any worse than a man who claims he will set aside his values in a heartbeat to do his job within the letter of the law? Does this man really seem to you to be a man of principle? Then that makes one ignorant Rightist buffoon on the Mote named Concerned.
JAH -
Too bad you are incapable of understanding the value of holding principles above ideology. You have effectively admitted that you would excuse any scurrilous act by one who made the right promises. That's one thing Hitler was very good at.
Do you have any proof Ashcroft actually asked that question or are you willing to just accept the statement of a partisan Democrat trying to stop Ashcroft's confirmation?
(pssst. - Reno will be ranked as being amongst the best A.G.s we've ever had.)
Too bad you are incapable of understanding the value of holding principles above ideology. You have effectively admitted that you would excuse any scurrilous act by one who made the right promises. That's one thing Hitler was very good at.
You are a madman.
However, I have a 31 year old daughter. If she came to me and said "Dad, I'm pregnant and there is just no way that I can have a baby at this time!" I would see that she went to the best abortionist that I could find.
The genie is out of the bottle. I don't believe that there is any way to stop legal abortions totally and return to the days a "coat hanger abortions". And I am speaking from the position of a person that started medical school in 1957. i.e. prior to the "pill" and prior to the Supreme Court's decision.
I have seen the result of back room abortions on two seperate occasions. One died; the other lived but could not have children in the future. That was enough experience for me to decide that a total ban on abortions is not in the best interest of society.
sorry, couldn't resist ....... carry on.
Bill Clinton provides entertainment values with his embarrassment acts.
Overall,it's good for the nation.
Aschroft is a Christian. The Bible says that individuals must follow the laws of the land in which they live. As a man of principle he has to put the law first since that is what his faith demands of him. In the confirmation hearings he said as much. His first principle is the rule of law. I guess after the last 8 years it is hard recognize a man of principle when you see one.
You're close. Reno would be rank amongst the best AGs we've ever had.
I guess after the last 8 years it is hard recognize a man of principle when you see one.
No, it isn't hard at all...as soon as I see one, I'll alert you and the media.
HaHaHa!
What an indictment of Reno's leg-acy!
Pick and choose, prosecute or not, delay or ignore - great powers they and the boys have them.
By whom? Pornographers? The Mafia?
re. 6203 -
JAH-
When John Ashcroft proves himself a very good and fair AG, I won't be counting on you to admit it.
It is fair game to criticize the job Reno has done as AG. This shit is out of bounds. Not all women can be Elaine Chao.
Not the type of mentality you want in an Attorney General.
But, so be it.
Let the fun and games begin.
When John Ashcroft proves himself a very good and fair AG, I won't be counting on you to admit it.
You are amazing...I would be more than happy to admit it IF it should happen. You, on the other hand, wouldn't admit a Democrat accomplishment if God came down and joined their party.
I would've been more than happy with Fred Thompson as Ag, by the way. I might have even voted for him for President.
Clinton's final days included a deal to avoid indictment in the Monica Lewinsky investigation, pardons of fugitive financier Marc Rich and other political supporters and his and Hillary Rodham Clinton's acceptance of $190,000 in china, furniture and other parting gifts.
YOU'RE KIDDING! Gee, I can't believe I missed THAT!
by SANDRA SOBIERAJ
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congressional Democrats and Republicans will scatter to separate corners for weekend policy retreats and President Bush, raising some political eyebrows here, will pop in on them all.
''I noticed that people are referring to this as the hug-a-Democrat-a-day administration,'' White House press secretary Ari Fleischer joked on Thursday. What Bush wants, Fleischer said, is to show Americans his focus is ''less on bickering and more on working.''
''He's very gratified that he's been invited to the retreats of the Senate Democrats and the House Democrats. It's without modern precedent for a president of the opposite party to go. It may be without precedent entirely. We're trying to trace it back,'' Fleischer said. Officials on Capitol Hill agreed that no president in recent memory has attended the opposition's annual closed-door strategy sessions.
By Fleischer's latest tally, Bush has, in his 13 days as president, welcomed between 150 and 160 members of Congress from both parties to the White House to meet with him.
Acting on a suggestion from Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle invited Bush last week to speak and field questions for a half-hour at the opening of Friday's Senate Democratic retreat at the Library of Congress.
Booking Bush for the House Democrats' escape to the mountains of Western Pennsylvania was much more roundabout. According to leadership officials, the first word that House Democrats heard of Bush's interest came from Capitol police........
Well, that's what Presidents By Default do, bbb.
Say - anyone seen any pictures of this so-called vandalism in the West Wing? (bbb didn't mention that one and I thought perhaps that even he will now acknowledge the calculated overblowing of that one.)
(NOT, Gifted President.)
The Democrats' two-day annual program, like that of their Senate counterparts, will be closed to reporters. The Republicans' joint House-Senate retreat in Williamsburg, Va., on Saturday, which Bush will also address, is open to press coverage.
''It's an opportunity for members to just know that the executive branch is listening to them. ... I think you're going to hear the president give the same message to the Democrats that he does to the Republicans; he's going to say the same thing. And he will talk about the importance of improving education ... cutting taxes, of passing his faith-based initiative, rebuilding the military, Medicare reform, Social Security.''
Okay, I'm outta here til tomorrow...I can read all this in my paper.
Nite, Janjon....nite, granpa...nite, Mary Ellen.
Bullshit.
JJ - no, that's not my point. I'm not too much to howl at the moon about myself, all right? However, I'm a white male ---- I'm not racist, a bigot, endear many cultures other than my own, my sister (we're both adopted) is of a different race than I and I love her dearly, I have friends of many racial, social, and cultural backgrounds.
Now - What happens if I call Jesse Jackson a lying black racist pig? I'm freakin' out of line, etc, etc.
What is thought of Jesse if he calls me a white racist?
Who will stand up and say "the emperor has no clothes!".
BTW, point taken wrt my comments on JR -sorry.
And is therefore primarily answerable to his Invisible Friends in the Sky.
" The Bible says that individuals must follow the laws of the land in which they live."
Undermining and circumventing it as they see fit.
" As a man of principle he has to put the law first since that is what his faith demands of him."
Unh Hunh>
" In the confirmation hearings he said as much."
In the confirmation hearings he lied about james Hormel.
" His first principle is the rule of law."
Have you started dating Ann Coulter?
" I guess after the last 8 years it is hard recognize a man of principle when you see one."
You bet. 8 years of Dan Burton -- and more to come!
In the Sept. 10, 1999, letter from a top Jackson aide to Stanford, Jackson's Citizenship Education Fund approved a $40,000 "draw" for Stanford against future consulting fees "for the purpose of acquiring residential real estate financing," according to the Post.
A D D, bbb??
Clinton's final days included a deal to avoid indictment in the Monica Lewinsky investigation, pardons of fugitive financier Marc Rich and other political supporters and his and Hillary Rodham Clinton's acceptance of $190,000 in china, furniture and other parting gifts.
YOU'RE KIDDING! Gee, I can't believe I missed THAT!
Now, if a Republican had done what Clowntoon did during his last week, you'd say he was human scum not fit to be elected dogcatcher. And you'd be right. But do you really think the rules should be so much more lax for Democrats or thrown out altogether?
Huh?
Democrats think they're just oh so cute and funny when they're being total hypocrites.
Bullshit, non.
What's hypocritical about asking him if he has Attention Deficit Disorder? If you'd done it, you'd be expecting slaps on the back from all your Freeper buddies...
Shameless is their middle name,like the Clintons.
AG Ashcroft may appoint someone to re-exam Algore's iced tea and the temple fund-raiser activities.
HeHeHe!
JAH -
I wasn't referring to you. I was thinking of JJSr. 'feeling Clowntoon's pain' while they were both cheating on their spouses.
Assuming this is true (which I dispute), does this justify lying about Ashcroft's record to further a political objective?
January 30, 2001
From staff and wire reports
WASHINGTON (CNN) --Imprisoned Native American activist and convicted murderer Leonard Peltier blasted former President Clinton on Monday for refusing to include him among several other controversial figures pardoned on his final day in office.
Fine, bbb...what is your opinion of that story? Do you wish to discuss any of these thousands of items you link to or post on?
This Peltier clown makes me laugh. Maybe Clowntoon should have pardoned him. It'd certainly have been no worse than the innumerable other questionable last second actions by the departed WH Resident.
We'll see what those who care about gay rights, abortion, enforcement of the gun control laws, etc. think about Ashcroft in, say, a year.
(By the way - whatever credibility you have ---and as you know, it is quite slender---just evaporates everytime you try to defend that pathetic group in Waco.)
But the flap over Bill Clinton's exit from the White House did more than just embarrass Democrats. It also distracted the media from focusing on Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft's confirmation fight.
bbb - unless you are trying to take the title of Most Simplistic away from Rosetta, could you please resist from posting these little slices of white bread?
Did Roger steal Bill's toys in their childhood?
Especially since you've posted them repeatedly over the past week?
Out of here.
G'Night.
janjon:
I don't think he reads others posts...just links, cuts and pastes, and makes cutesy remarks.
I will read if you have any intelligent thought to post.
Still bullshit. The worst thing that can be said of the White situation is that it was a political calculation. That would make him no different from those people who are using that same tactic against him. In other words it makes him a politician. Considering the vicious attacks launched by Democrats over the last 8 years to protect Clinton from scandal, it is hypocritical in the extreme to take Ashcroft to task. Unless you want to admit that Democrats believe "that [their] causes are so incontrovertably correct and true that it is permissible to use the means necessary to further or protect them" and therefore they are unsuited to hold office.
Oh but I do....
Bye.
All of it. For example, it has been claimed that Ashcroft opposed the desegregation of St. Louis schools. This is false. The schools is St. Louis were not segregated despite Judge Hungate's assertion that they were. The "solution" Ashcroft opposed was rammed down the throats of the various school districts by the judge, and it involved busing children 1-2 hours a day and it did nothing to improve the schools that were failing then and are still failing now.
I believe it was possession with intent to distribute.
So the Democrats' misrepresentation of Mr. Ashcroft's record consists of stating that the facts were as the court concluded them to be? Oh, those rotten liars.
-Democrats up for re-election in states that voted solidly for Bush, line up against Ashchroft
- Lott whines "I was surprised that so many Democrats would vote against a former colleague"
Not a bad day's work
that it was a political calculation.
Stuart Taylor "Ashcroft is a cheap character assassin who should not be confirmed"
Now Stuart Taylor is a conservative legal correspondent for the National Journal.
Do you really want me to go into the worst things that can be said about that lying fundie homophobic, mysogenistic freak's conduct?
And precisely which tactics have been used against Ashcroft that remote approximate those he used against White?
The misrepresentation comes from implying that Ashcroft opposed the desegregation of a segregated school system. Ashcroft opposed a busing plan that harmed school children (especially minorities) by draining money from their schools to shuffle them around between schools. The claim was made that this is "proof" Ashcroft opposed the enforcement of civil rights laws. Maybe it is a radical concept to use education funds to actually educate children instead of them spending 30 million dollars a year to play musical chairs.
Calling him a racist despite a long record of working to improve civil rights enforcement and appointing minorities to judicial and administrative jobs as governor.
Interesting article on that bad bitch---Senator Hillary
...a woman on a lifelong mission to make America a fairer, better society for everyone, especially the disadvantaged? Or, is she just a highly articulate, ambitious politician who took unprecedented advantage of being the First Lady?
They called them kapos in the camps.
en·light·ened - 1 : freed from ignorance and misinformation
Cal:
I am surprised that Clinton didn't pardon Peltier. That was a far easier win.
What, are you crazy?
Peltier never gave the guy a dime!
Jade:
They called them kapos in the camps.
And the likes of Jade, they called Maytag.
I'm sooooo confused!
mmmmm....must be a discussion of GOP lawn jockeys!
Wonder what Mister Justice Step N Fetchit's doin these days?
Oh I remember..swearin in the Racist, Homphobe AG!
...and it's kinda nice to have Jade back to kick around, doncha think?
You know, jexster, I think you've been in S.F. a little too long. You should get out more.
I'd never stoop to Ashcroft's level.
By Richard Cohen
Dear Bill:
I have been in Europe, as you probably know from closely following my career, and I returned to find a firestorm over your pardon of Marc Rich. And so I read up -- many, many articles -- and I now have this to say: You let me down.
Yes "me" -- me and everyone else who has ever defended you. ...
Almost always I could come to your defense. ...
With the Marc Rich pardon, though, I have looked and looked for extenuating circumstances, for justifications, and I can find none. When Jack Quinn characterized the prosecution of Rich as overzealous and reminded us that Rudy Giuliani was the U.S. attorney at the time, I hesitated: Rudy . . . overzealous . . . Where have I heard that before?
...
A friend of mine, a longtime critic of yours, says you got paid off -- clear and simple. She quotes the old Watergate maxim: "Follow the money." ...I am silent. I can say nothing in your defense.
...
In Davos, Switzerland, where I was attending the meeting of the World Economic Forum, I couldn't find anyone who understood what you did or could defend it. I am talking now of American politicians, Democrats -- the people who went to bat for you during impeachment. As for the Europeans, they are a cynical bunch. They think you got something.
So what was it? You say nothing. But you need to say something. You might even say you made a mistake, that you were spacey from lack of sleep, because as far as I'm concerned there is no good reason for granting a pardon to a fugitive -- a draft dodger from the Vietnam War, maybe, but not a mogul on the lam from the revenuers. You have to say something. In this case, your silence is not golden. It's smug.
...
It's a pie in the face of anyone who ever defended you. You may look bad, Bill, but we look just plain stupid.
My old buddy Charlie Cook, a regular on Meet the Press, NBC Nightly News and CNN All Politics, and THE foremost expert on matters Congressional has finally gotten his website going
The Cook Report
You could never rise to Ashcroft's level. The best you can do is bite at his ankles. And miss.
In the final analysis, the measure of a man is the opinions of those who knew him best.
Presidents are no different.
With JFK, the reviews were mixed. But the vast majority had very nice things to say about him, and none of any consequence could find much of anything terribly bad to say about him.
Reagan is worshipped by many in his own party, and hated by many of the other persuasion. He eveokes nothing so strong - to either extreme -in those who worked for him.
It's pretty hard to find anyone with a kind word for any of Carter's policies. But it's even harder to find anyone who does not respect him for his integrity. And he was very well liked by those who knew him well.
Bush Sr? Pretty unremarkable - a few hate him, a few love him. But the vast majority fall well between those extremes.
But not even Nixon could evoke the kind of negativity we hear all the time from the former friends and colleagues of Bill Clinton. From the earliest days of his presidency, right down to the bitter end - from press secretaries to chiefs of staff, virtually every single person who has worked closely with him has registered, once they were free to speak their minds, at the least bitter disappointment, all the way down to abject disgust.
The very few who haven't weighed in with their condemnation of some aspect of his character or administration, say nothing. They do not sing his praises. They do not even offer a pat on the back.
That is the Clinton legacy.
...and NO, jexster...you don't count.
Jay Leno:
"All of the New York papers are gossiping, gossiping, gossiping. That's the big thing now. They all say now that Hillary Clinton is a senator, maybe you know that she stopped wearing makeup and nail polish. She stopped having her hair done. She's also wearing less fashionable clothes. Isn't she worried maybe her husband might lose interest? Gee, I hope this doesn't give Bill a wandering eye.""
Barely two weeks after Clinton left the White House, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania scheduled a Judiciary Committee hearing for Feb. 7 on the Rich pardon, already the subject of an investigation by the House of Representatives Government Reform Committee, headed by Indiana Republican Dan Burton. Burton will hold a hearing on the matter on Feb. 8.
Critics have blasted the pardon, suggesting Clinton was swayed by Rich's ex-wife, Denise Rich, who has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democratic Party. Clinton said he acted on the legal merits of the case.
``There well may be an invitation to former President Clinton on the analogy of President Ford,'' Specter said Thursday, referring to Ford's testimony to the House Judiciary Committee in October 1974 concerning his controversial pardon of former President Richard Nixon in the Watergate case.
Like his presidency, which was marred by a sex scandal that sparked his impeachment, Clinton's post-presidency was beset from the start by controversy.
Republicans and Democrats criticized the Clintons for accepting $190,000 in gifts before leaving office, including $22,000 in china, $18,000 in flatware, and $2,993 for televisions and a DVD player.
``I don't think the taxpayers should be asked to mandate a penthouse for the former president,'' said Istook, who chairs the House subcommittee that oversees funding for the White House and the General Services Administration, which is responsible for procuring office space for presidents once they leave office.
But the Rich pardon -- one of Clinton's last acts before George W. Bush (news - web sites) was sworn in as president on Jan. 20 -- has sparked the biggest backlash.
``I do think that there are enough questions here that somebody needs to look into it,'' said Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi. Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said the Rich hearings should not turn into ``a partisan witch hunt.''
Rich fled to Switzerland nearly two decades ago after being indicted by then prosecutor Rudolph Giuliani, who is now mayor of New York.
He was indicted on more than 50 counts of wire fraud, racketeering, trading with Iran in violation of a trade embargo, and evading more than $48 million in income taxes. His company pleaded guilty in 1984 to tax evasion. Rich remained in exile.
Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said the Rich hearings should not turn into ``a partisan witch hunt.''
So. Is Daschle signaling that there may indeed be hearings?
And, after not one person - not even the most hardened democrat - has offered up a bad reason for giving Clinton a pass on this, let alone a good one, he's worried that these hypothetical hearings may become a "partisan witch-hunt"?
Utter hypocrisy.
Message # 6309:
...puts the lie to my statement: "not even the most hardened democrat - has offered up a bad reason for giving Clinton a pass on this, let alone a goon one..."
uhhh...good one.
As much as the Repugs whine and rend their clothing, Clinto left office with the highest job approval rating of any President. Curious George will always have an asterisk after his name.
Edwin Meese. Ronald Reagan's bagman. Mr. WedTech.
It appears that Ashcroft is in rather dubious company.
Public Statement by the Rev. Jesse Jackson
Due to the great consternation caused by the revelation of my act of procreation, I accept my obligation to give an explanation to the population for my act of copulation. I gave in to temptation, for the anticipation of sexual gratification, that I could not obtain through masturbation, resulted in my fornication.
I accepted her invitation, and provided her with excitation, stimulation, penetration, replication, and liberation. She provided lubrication (to avoid inflammation) and I wore condoms to avoid contamination.
She cried for duplication but I insisted upon termination, in spite of her fascination with variation.
This has caused me great aggravation, and the agitation and provocation of the media has resulted in my humiliation, denigration, and degradation. My wife is considering castration, which would require my hospitalization. Pray that this matter will find culmination in my sanctification and rehab