His worst professional moment was having a guy arrested and handcuffed on the trading floor, only to drop the charges a few weeks later. He totally humiliated a guy without just cause.
His worst RL moment was calling his wife an unfit mother the day before Mother's Day weekend.
20076. rubberducky - 5/23/2001 1:10:53 PM
any word on that VT senator who was talking about switching parties?
20077. CalGal - 5/23/2001 1:15:03 PM
Yes, he has postponed the announcement until Thursday, says he wants to "be back home" with Vermonters. But he has said he'll be making a public announcement, and that it won't be to say "No, I'm not switching parties."
He will be changing to an independent, not a Democrat. I wonder if the delay is to allow passage of the tax bill?
20078. rubberducky - 5/23/2001 1:18:06 PM
CG:
according to this that's exactly why:
Republican Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont has told Democrats he intends to abandon his party and become an independent, officials said Wednesday, a switch that would end GOP control of the Senate and crimp President Bush's ability to pass his agenda.
"He's going to leave, that's all I've been told," said one Democratic senator, speaking on condition of anonymity.
A second Democratic senator, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said party leaders had told him Jeffords would align himself with Democrats for organizational purposes, thereby giving them control on a Senate now split 50-50.
Jeffords, a moderate in a party of conservatives, told reporters he would disclose his decision at mid-afternoon.
Several sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Jeffords might defer the effective date of his switch until early June. That would enable Republicans to push through Bush's income tax cut, now pending on the Senate floor.
20079. glendajean - 5/23/2001 1:34:47 PM
It's possible that Senate control will change back and forth a couple of times in the near future. Should keep the Drapery people in business.
20080. glendajean - 5/23/2001 1:36:43 PM
BTW, did Ted Olsen ever get confirmed? The Bush people will want to get that done before Chairman Leahy takes over the Judicial Committee.
20081. CalGal - 5/23/2001 1:37:58 PM
I think Bush was anxious for a limited hearing; he doesn't want this being made too public. That was the last I'd heard of it.
20082. CalGal - 5/23/2001 1:42:27 PM
Here's more: Panel Still Split
20083. wonkers2 - 5/23/2001 2:12:35 PM
Bush took some bad advice on the Olsen nomination. He was a foolish pick. Ashcroft is bombing at the Justice Department. He's isolated and alienated himself from the permanent staffers and is holding weekly prayer sessions for the faithful.
20084. wonkers2 - 5/23/2001 2:15:52 PM
Cap'n Dirty sez, "That there Giuliani ain't my kinder guy. He's a major league asshole, and a reglar Cap'n Queeg."
20085. robertjayb - 5/23/2001 2:25:00 PM
Stopping Olsen would be a big morale boost for us Clinton groupies. Both of us.
20086. JudithAtHome - 5/23/2001 2:26:14 PM
Make that three of us...
20087. CalGal - 5/23/2001 2:35:01 PM
I think he'll get in as Solicitor General, but Ihave a feeling that the Supreme Court isn't gonna happen for Teddy.
20088. Cellar Door - 5/23/2001 2:36:55 PM
I'm not a Clinton groupie. But Olson and his cokehead wife need to be stopped.
20089. JudithAtHome - 5/23/2001 2:37:59 PM
Oh god...I'd forgotten that Barbara comes along with the package.
20090. janjon - 5/23/2001 3:01:26 PM
Just returned from a most pleasant lunch. With people who know what is going on. (I should mention that I am in D.C., as I frequently am.)
Thank God the teacher of the year wasn't from New Hampshire. There is no question that the White House snub of Jeffords when it came to the ceremony (and, he IS the Chair of the Senate Education Committee for God's sake, let alone from Vermont) was a major element in convincing him that he really had no stomach for the GOP as it currently exists in D.C.
I love it.
Karl Rove is a naive naif. Hardball - ha.
I can only imagine the number of times we will be treated to clips of W intoning "I am a uniter, not a divider".
W's handlers couldn't even keep his own party in line.
Just hilarious.
20091. wonkers2 - 5/23/2001 3:03:27 PM
Can anybody think of someone less compassionate than Barbara Olsen? What a pair.
20092. glendajean - 5/23/2001 3:41:50 PM
There probably isn't a Jeffords Republican equivalent in the Texas legislature. OTH, Bush found moderate to conservative Democrats in the Texas leg that did work with him and his programs.
20093. Ronski - 5/23/2001 3:44:13 PM
Regarding what janjon is saying about not being able to keep party members in line. First, there is the complaining within the GOP over the size of the tax cut. Then there is the failed brinkmanship with Jeffords over the milk bill. And last the early departure of Herbits from his post advising Rummy. The DOD denies it, but some believe Herbits left early because Lott was slowing down approvals of any personnel recommended by an openly gay Republican. (It's hard to see what frightens Senate Republicans more, actually becoming the party of downsizing government, or letting gay people into it.)
Of course, Bush may yet be the beneficiary in all this by having triangulation forced upon him.
20094. Wombat - 5/23/2001 3:50:06 PM
Janj:
You are in DC? For how long?
20095. janjon - 5/23/2001 4:00:11 PM
I somehow just don't see W's handlers succeeding with triangulation. Their collective hearts just won't be in it. Plus, they may indeed not know how to pull it off. This mess (from their perspective) with Jeffords is a real eye-opener.
I mean- just how could they piss off ONE OF THEIR OWN that badly.
More than a couple of "significant" staffers in the Senate are loudly complaining that neither W's handlers nor Lott ever really let it sink in the way it should that the Senate really is (was) 50-50, and that they didn't have a majority of four or five to bank on.
20096. janjon - 5/23/2001 4:01:01 PM
wombat - I come to D.C. frequently, must usually (as today) for the day. Early train down, late afternoon train back.
20097. Wombat - 5/23/2001 4:14:29 PM
Janjon:
Next time you are in town call me at: 202-305-1294
20098. glendajean - 5/23/2001 4:18:04 PM
Howard Kurtz: Journalists are in Seventh Heaven
20100. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/23/2001 4:24:57 PM
20101. jexster - 5/23/2001 4:48:43 PM
Its nice that journalists are "in 7th heaven" but I wish they'd come back to earth for a few days at least and do their jobs - report the corporate krapola that's going down in DC.
20102. Indiana Jones - 5/23/2001 4:56:34 PM
gj: I don't listen to Rush, but the person I had lunch with today does. Yep--all the usual suspects needed new fodder for the grist mill and, regardless of how they act, are delighted.
20103. janjon - 5/23/2001 4:58:07 PM
jex - oh rest assured, more than one journalist is quite aware of how all those happy fat cats have been acting and operating since Jan. 20.
give 'em more rope, it will make the denouement that much more fun.
20104. OhioSTOPAS - 5/23/2001 5:05:39 PM
It's been a good day for us Democrats, huh?
Oh, wait a minute, I spoke too soon . . .
This just in:
By 5-4 vote, Supreme Court enters order prohibiting the counting of Senators.
20105. wonkers2 - 5/24/2001 8:20:20 AM
First, Jeffords. Second, Lincoln Chaffee.
20106. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/24/2001 8:21:34 AM
20107. msgreer - 5/24/2001 9:59:27 AM
wonkers
I though Chafee too but heard him on CNN yesterday and he did not sound like he was planning to make the move. However, he did show compassion toward Jefford. You remember compassion, wonkers, that's what the new Washington is all about..or is that just what bush ran on and then when he got to 1600 Pennsylvania he let his real side out.
Majority Leader Tom Daschale. Good by Jesse, hello Joe.
20108. JJBiener - 5/24/2001 10:01:45 AM
MsGreer - Politics is politics. None of them are worth the time of day.
20109. rubberducky - 5/24/2001 10:02:07 AM
i'm tickled, of course, about this, but i have a sense of dread that the Dems will fuck this opportunity up like they did with Clinton's 1st couple of years.
20110. msgreer - 5/24/2001 10:05:29 AM
JJ
Nice to see you too. No one is going to take this day away from me. I will deal with reality tomorrow, JJ, as I hope you will too. heehee.
20111. JJBiener - 5/24/2001 10:09:27 AM
MsGreer - Actually, I couldn't be happier about Jeffords move. I have come to believe that neither party can be trusted with power. Let's keep government divided and let them fight it out amongst themselves and leave us alone.
Cynical, aint I?
20112. Cellar Door - 5/24/2001 10:11:32 AM
No J.J., you're pragmatic.
20113. Dusty - 5/24/2001 10:12:28 AM
I predict the Jeffords decision will help the GOP in the 2002 election. Two days ago, it looked likely they would lose both houses. I think their prospects have improved.
20114. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 10:16:16 AM
Dusty: Possibly. I think rather it's a challenge that also represents opportunity, as the Chinese say.
20115. glendajean - 5/24/2001 10:16:28 AM
Dusty, why do you feel that way?
20116. Dusty - 5/24/2001 10:17:01 AM
Now the Libertarians have to learn how to flex their muscles (I predict we will fail.) After all, two days ago the Libertarian could only claim that we were responsible for a closely divided Senate; now we can take credit for shifting the control to the Dems.
20117. msgreer - 5/24/2001 10:23:10 AM
Dusty
I don't understand your reasoning when you say the 2002 elections will be good for the Repubs. I don't think so. I believe the American people are getting a clearer picture of who gw is...and they don't like it. I predict a one term presidency for gw..unless he can change his feathers and govern for all the people. Not holding my breath on that one. You don't think what Jeffords had to say is true? The Repubs are out of touch, Dusty.
20118. Dusty - 5/24/2001 10:25:06 AM
glendajean
If the GOP is smart (a questionable assumption, to be sure), they will be able to campaign in 2002 on the following message:
The only thing of substance passed during the last two years is the largest tax cut in history, leading to a continuation of economic growth. But since the first hundred days of the present administration, when the control of the Senate passed to the Dems, almost nothing has happened. Every proposal has been bottled up, shot down or watered down to ineffectiveness by the Dems (some, including me, may consider this a good thing, but it may still sell.) The only way for government to deliver X,Y, and Z is to put the Dems in control of the Senate,a nd strengthen control in the House, to enact our plans.
Skilled political leaders can improve the prose, but the alternative (if Jeffords hadn't switched) is that the GOP would have no excuses.
People with better political sense than me (FU for example) will probably retort that people don't react positively to excuses, but I still think that the prospects for the GOP are better today than they were two days ago.
20119. glendajean - 5/24/2001 10:26:05 AM
Given nobody could have predicted the outcome of the past two elections, I doubt if anybody has a good idea how the next one will turn out.
The Democrats will get committee chairmanships (new offices, pick of staff, make certain procedural decisions). But the total number is so close that there won't be much change. Either Party can gum up the works to kingdom come, but I doubt if either would want to do that.
The last time the Republicans were in the minority, they played a strong game, but it was against Senate Dems and President Clinton. It could be trickier for them this time because the President is on their side.
Gotta love Vermont this time of year.
20120. JJBiener - 5/24/2001 10:28:19 AM
MsGreer - Sure the GOP is out of touch. But the alternative is the Dems. They are just as out of touch if not more so.
Lincoln said a house divided against itself cannot stand. I am not sure a House united is any bargain either.
20121. msgreer - 5/24/2001 10:28:24 AM
Dusty
The American people are smarter than that.
They're not going to buy the lies anymore. If things don't get done it will not only be the Dems but the Repubs too..and of course their leader, gw.
I predict people will come out and vote en masse in 2002. Hopefully, every vote will count this time.
20122. Dusty - 5/24/2001 10:29:04 AM
msgreer
I believe Jeffords when he decides to change the balance of power in this country in order to ensure higher milk prices. I just don't happen to agree with the goal. But it is better suited to a Democrat. If he thinks it is important to hurt the consumer, then I'd rather he announce that he isn't in the GOP.
Do you think higher milk prices is what the American people want? If so, I'm happy to be out of touch with the American people. I have more faith in the American people, even if my faith is misplaced.
20123. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 10:31:32 AM
Clearly the Jeffords move directly helps the Democrats only slightly if at all. It does damage the Republicans, so the Democrats may profit by that, but the fact that it affects the Republicans more than the Democrats also means the Republicans have more control over the situation. (What I mean is, Democratic ability to be obstructive is enhanced, but their ability to do is not.)
Plus, when it comes to PR as the Republicans found out during the Clinton era, in a divided government the presidency has most of the advantages. Whether Bush is adept as the Clinton machine was at making full use of those advantages remains to be seen.
Moreover, the nature of conservatism is to resist change. Few conservatives (despite what liberals think or at least say they think about conservatives) really want to roll back change (after all, that is in itself change). Hence, the more divided the government, the more likely status quo conservatives will be happy.
The big prize remains the tax cut. If as in all likelihood it passes, the Jeffords' defection will be miniscule in comparison as to the future direction of this country. As far as the 2002 and 2004 elections, the Republicans will largely determine how big a role their loss of the Senate plays. The Democrats perhaps can use this to their advantage in that realm, but they have a much trickier hand to play.
20124. JJBiener - 5/24/2001 10:32:51 AM
MsGreer - I will bet you that turnout in 2002 is the lowest in history. There is too much disenchantment with the system. If a political junkie like me is debating whether to vote, I can only imagine what the average voter is feeling.
20125. glendajean - 5/24/2001 10:34:59 AM
Dusty, so far your milk price supports angle is not getting much traction.
Clinton threatened to close down a base in Alabama or some kind of government facility. Shelby quit the Party and didn't look back.
True believers will chew on this traitorous bone but probably not the public at large.
William Safire had a funny column today, including dire warnings about the ultra-partisan Tom Daschle. I guess Trent was a statesman.
20126. JayAckroyd - 5/24/2001 10:48:27 AM
How does Jeffords' switch affect the composition of the senate side of the conference committee on the tax bill?
20127. jexster - 5/24/2001 10:50:18 AM
Sen. James M. Jeffords of Vermont said today he will quit the Republican Party, giving Democrats control of the Senate for the first time since 1994 and greatly enhancing their ability to challenge President Bush's legislative agenda.
God Damn right....stop this corporate polluter railroad train AND CAP CA ELECTRICITY!
20128. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 10:51:06 AM
Jay: Dunno the latest, but what I knew yesterday was that this wasn't going to affect the tax cut because Jeffords was giving a 30-day grace period before switching. Plus, the current version of the cut passed the Senate by more than 60 votes, so I doubt either way his switch can stop it.
The biggest obstacle, if any, IMO is for House Republicans to try to get much more than they're getting.
20129. glendajean - 5/24/2001 10:52:24 AM
In his statement this morning Jeffords said that he has assured the president he would hold off until the Senate had voted on the tax bill conference report. He had no desire to derail the tax cut.
20130. jexster - 5/24/2001 10:52:59 AM
That's a very good question Jay...
There's a lotta payback....Since 1994 the Grand Old Poopstain has played fast and loose with the conference process. The latest incident the missing pages scam on the Budget conference.
What has pissed Demos off even more, Lott had a way of starting conferences and not telling the Democratic members of the committee....
Daschle though will probably play this one straight and in fact I hope he plays them all straight. What the GOP has done to the Senate procedures needs to be undone.
20131. jexster - 5/24/2001 10:56:31 AM
I hear Strom wasn't looking to well during the late night session earlier this week. Look for a long and grueling agenda.
hehehe
20132. Cellar Door - 5/24/2001 11:01:11 AM
Reich-wing radio is in meltdown over Jeffords. They're claiming that this has come about because Vermont is now "a gay state."
TODAY VERMONT --TOMORROW THE WORLD!
20133. JayAckroyd - 5/24/2001 11:02:03 AM
I don't think there's any question that we'll get a tax bill within the broad outlines passed by both houses. However, the devil is in the details, and a senate conference committee headed by democrats with a democratic majority may affect those details.
If that's what's gonna happen, of course.
20134. glendajean - 5/24/2001 11:07:50 AM
Jay, Jeffords said he has assured the president that he is witholding his support of the Democrats until the Senate votes on the tax cut conference committee report.
20135. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 11:08:45 AM
Jay: Not a chance (of its being substantially different). Besides, "within the broad outlines" is sufficient, given that the House passed $1.6 trillion and the Senate version is IIRC $1.3 trillion. Take $1.3 trillion of surplus out and give it back to the taxpayers and you've done the deed AFAIC:
20136. jexster - 5/24/2001 11:11:06 AM
20137. Fielding - 5/24/2001 11:11:21 AM
US Supreme Court declares Jeffords' defection unconstitutional!
20138. Fielding - 5/24/2001 11:11:43 AM
Heh, heh
20139. jexster - 5/24/2001 11:12:29 AM
The tax cut is a crock of shit...most of that 2 trillion+ doesn't come for four years.
Just like the Raygun first cuts, they won't ever go into effect
20140. MsIvoryTower - 5/24/2001 11:13:31 AM
William Safire had a funny column today, including dire warnings about the ultra-partisan Tom Daschle. I guess Trent was a statesman.
On this note, I draw your attention to the deluge of national funds that have flowed down to Mississippi, Louisanna and Alabama since Lott has been Majority Leader. Anyone driving along I-10 in those states will be privileged to see the signs: construction projects galore and all funded by our lucky US tax dollars.
I wouldn't be so snide except for the fact that I've been driving that stretch of highway for the last 10 years, and can attest that the roads being worked on were in quite good shape compared to other places I've seen.
Nothing like a little feeding at the trough to keep the minions happy.
20141. jexster - 5/24/2001 11:20:07 AM
Morning IT...say did you know that 62% of San Francisco Filipinos trusted City Hall to do what is right most of the time or just about always yet 64% were not registered to vote.
2x2 crosstabs uber alles!!!
20142. jexster - 5/24/2001 11:21:43 AM
Contribute $1 to Jeffords!
. Send a $1 bill in an envelope to:
Jeffords For Vermont Committee Inc.
P.O. Box 246
Montpelier, VT 05601.
2. Call his office (202-224-5141) to tell him.
3. Sign an e-petition to tell the world.
Fuck Bush!
20143. Dusty - 5/24/2001 11:21:44 AM
glendajean
Dusty, so far your milk price supports angle is not getting much traction.
20144. glendajean - 5/24/2001 11:24:54 AM
I heard that Mississippi has done well since Lott has been Majority Leader.
For years, Tarrant County (Fort Worth) got more federal dollars than any other county in the country, thanks to Jim Wright. Austin received much largess during the LBJ years. And if you take the highway from Austin to Stonewall (the LBJ Ranch), you will drive on a divided highway.
As Mel Brooks says repeatedly, it's good to be the king. I am sure that several people in West Virginia are whistling a happy tune this morning now that Byrd will be chair of Appropriations again.
20145. glendajean - 5/24/2001 11:26:27 AM
If you mean there has been little outrage that such major steps would occur over trivial and idiotic positions, I agree that such outrage is missing.
Of course, that is what I was referring to.
20146. jexster - 5/24/2001 11:27:07 AM
54% of Californians think that Bush has done a poor job handling the energy crisis compared to 38% for Governor Davis....
That low? Considering that Davis is the ONLY one doing ANYTHING!
Watch for Bush to cap prices or Daschle will call up Feinstein's Bill
20147. Ronski - 5/24/2001 11:27:07 AM
glenda,
The milk angle is the only angle that matters. No politician who has been successful for a quarter of a century is going to proclaim that he changed the balance of power in the Senate in order to ensure higher prices for farmers at the expense of the consumer. But look at what committee chair he's supposed to get: Not Education, which is what his platitudes were about, but Environment and Public Works. As William Safire points out today, that gives Jeffords power over the Alaska drilling debate, and a shield to protect the dairy compact.
20148. jexster - 5/24/2001 11:28:12 AM
No shit..Ingalls Shipyard is boomin....no mo...
Mississippi find yourself another country to be part of!
20149. jexster - 5/24/2001 11:29:39 AM
The milk angle is not the only angle that matters...Jeffords is also opposed to Bush's education flim flam....
20150. Ronski - 5/24/2001 11:32:19 AM
jexster,
And what chairmanship is he getting, again? It ain't Education.
20151. glendajean - 5/24/2001 11:32:40 AM
Ronski, you really think the Dems were going to push Ed Kennedy aside on Education?
It is the only angle that matters to you or Dusty. Harry Reid has been pushing Jeffords to switch parties since 1996 (according today's W. Post). Harry Reid is giving up Public Words to Jeffords. And for what it is worth, Jeffords has some record as being interested and concerned about the environment.
I don't deny that milk had something to do with this. But it's not the whole story.
Having witnessed numerous party switchers going over to the GOP, I don't get teary eyed or sentimental about the one time it went the other way. They all have their reasons. And I note that no church has yet put a member of Congress on their list of Saints.
20152. jexster - 5/24/2001 11:33:06 AM
Ronski be careful to wash your hands after touching shit talk from the ConIntern....
EPW with or without Jeffords won't approve ANWR drilling...the Senate with or without the defection wasn't going to approve it either...
You can bet your Vermont wedding ring that we won't be drillin ANWR to protect NE dairy farmers.
20153. Dusty - 5/24/2001 11:33:27 AM
glendajean
OK,
On that point I'll have to suffer being Cassandra.
20154. Dusty - 5/24/2001 11:35:43 AM
jexster
well, duh, there is probably a long list of issue where Jeffords disagrees with Bush. But he isn't going to get his wish on education. Expensive milk is the only bennie he will get for his decision. I hope Vermonters thank him every time they pay too much for milk.
20155. Ronski - 5/24/2001 11:38:56 AM
Dusty is correct, still.
20156. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 11:42:26 AM
As far as putting the blame for this at Bush's door, well, somewhat, but Trent Lott is where the buck should really stop regarding keeping everyone on the reservation. One angle re Bush vs. Jeffords I haven't heard brought up is the carbon dioxide flipflop. Didn't Jeffords also express dismay over that?
20157. Ronski - 5/24/2001 11:45:07 AM
And Environment and Public Works plays into the milk compact business in a signficant way. The reason there's quite a bit of support for higher milk prices in Vermont is due to the fact that it is directly linked to the environment. The wealthy tree huggers, the 70s-era hippies, and most areas of the extremely important tourist industry support the milk bill because it will help preserve Vermont's rural scenery. As chair of EPW, Jeffords ranks as champion of the environment, a concern that in Vermont is directly tied to milk.
20158. stostosto - 5/24/2001 11:45:41 AM
jex
I always wonder why it is you post opinion polls. Indeed, that anyone does. What's the point?
20159. Ronski - 5/24/2001 11:46:59 AM
Funny, but somehow I am not going to miss Trent Lott, should he be replaced by Frist or somebody.
I think it has something to do with his comparing gay people to kleptomaniacs and alcoholics a while back.
20160. glendajean - 5/24/2001 11:47:27 AM
Here's the fun part (I say this out of memory of liberal Democrats self-destructing over tolerating conservative Democrats).
In the long run, best to get rid of them - because they are a treacherous breed who largely want to get rid of principled conservatives. And better to get rid of them before they try and get rid of you. Are you listening, Senator Chafee? --Andrew Sullivan
Howard Kurtz notes nasty reactions in his media column.
And then there is this story in today's W Post:
Conservatives Twist At Unexpected Turn
20161. msgreer - 5/24/2001 11:47:32 AM
JJ
Well, I can't speak for every voter but I'll bet on Florida. I think you will see the State of Florida voters come out big time in 2001. You have the luxury to beyond the 2000 election. We don't have that luxury in Florida. People are angry down here, JJ. There are alot of unresolved issues relating to the election in Florida and we live with it everyday.
Having said that, I am willing to sit back and see if the Dems do the right thing. And if they don't, well, you know me well..I'll say something.
20162. glendajean - 5/24/2001 11:49:28 AM
Winning in politics, like Survivor, is based on addition, not subtraction.
20163. jexster - 5/24/2001 11:49:34 AM
sto...
keep wonderin
20164. msgreer - 5/24/2001 11:50:10 AM
Dusty
No, I do not think Americans want higher milk costs. Nor do they want higher gas prices or a President screaming the sky is falling..we have an energy crisis. Nor do they get off on CEO's of big petroleum getting fat bonus checks while they lay off workers.
Jeffords is representing the folks of Vermont and for that he is no different than anyother Senator.
20165. jexster - 5/24/2001 11:51:09 AM
I wonder why sto wonders....this is a DEMOCRACY after all
but then again after the Great Coup of 2000, maybe not
maybe sto is right to wonder after all....
20166. msgreer - 5/24/2001 11:52:33 AM
JJ
Don't know what happen to my post. Look, I am willing to sit back and see what the Dems do and if I don't like it you know me well enough..I will say something. As for voter turn out,I can't speak for the country but I can for Florida. I believe you will see a huge turnout in 2002. You have the luxury of getting beyond the 2000 election. We in Florida live with it everyday. There are many unresolved issues for us. And it is on television and in the papers everyday.
20167. jexster - 5/24/2001 11:52:45 AM
Jeffords can fuck Lott, Shelby and a few other fine representatives of Fly Over Country when they have to go to EPW for their annual pork allotment!
20168. stostosto - 5/24/2001 11:53:10 AM
ok, jex
polls matter. But you seem to use them as a political argument. It's not every poll you reference, is it? Only the ones that support your positions. But why not just argue that position?
20169. msgreer - 5/24/2001 11:54:59 AM
Jesus. What does it take to get a post to post. My third and last try.
JJ, I am willing to sit back and see what the Dems do and if they screw up..well, you know me well enough, I will say something. You have the luxury to put the 2000 election behind you. We don't in Florida. There are too many unresolved issues. I can't speak for the country but I bet you will see the folks in Florida coming up in huge numbers to vote in 2002.
20170. RosettaStone - 5/24/2001 11:56:58 AM
I think it's a good thing for Sen. Jeffords to leave the Republican party and, hopefully, it will cause a rebellion in the Senate over getting rid of that asshole, Trent Lott.
20171. msgreer - 5/24/2001 11:58:25 AM
sorry.
Dusty
No, I do not want to see higher milk prices. Neither do I want to see gas prices increase. Nor do I want a President who screams the sky is falling when he refers to an energy crisis we don't have.And I resent the CEO's of big petroleum getting fat bonus checks when they're laying off workers.
So, Jeffords is representing the folks in his home state. So does every Senator. If the folks in Vermont don't like what he did, they can let him know at the ballot box.
20172. JayAckroyd - 5/24/2001 12:12:59 PM
Message # 20135
No, a tax cut does not give Washington less money to play around with. A tax cut matched dollar for dollar with spending cuts gives Washington less money to play with. Republicans and Democrats alike favor a large government that grows annually. This argument is how it is going to be funded, by borrowing money and therefore increasing government spending to pay interest on the debt of the growing budget versus matching tax dollars to spending, while reducing the deficit. The second route is clearly the more fiscally conservative course. In the short run, it may be ill-advised, if we really are in the recession, but as a long term strategy, it both imprudent and fiscally liberal.
Someone was quoted in the NYTimes today saying that there is nowhere for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal person to go. There is a choice between social conservativism and social liberalism. But both parties are committed to filling the trough with your money.
20173. Stumbo - 5/24/2001 12:14:55 PM
MSG:
"I resent the CEO's of big petroleum getting fat bonus checks when they're laying off workers."
Are you in favor of legislation banning this practice?
20174. JudithAtHome - 5/24/2001 12:15:55 PM
This is from Jonah Goldberg about Jeffords:
"The White House and the GOP generally will be guilty of professional malpractice if they don't punish Jeffords for pulling the rug out from under them. I know that it's illegal to sew a half-starved weasel into his small intestine, but there are some other options."
Would this idiot have a column if it weren't for his mom?
20175. Stumbo - 5/24/2001 12:21:13 PM
MSG:
... or an executive order, perhaps?
20176. JayAckroyd - 5/24/2001 12:22:49 PM
And my favorite quote on the Jeffords topic is in today's NYT.
Lowell Weicker said that he visited with former Senator Barry Goldwater shortly before his death and that "he was bemoaning the fact that even someone like him would be considered too liberal for the Republican Party."
20177. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 12:31:56 PM
No, a tax cut does not give Washington less money to play around with. A tax cut matched dollar for dollar with spending cuts gives Washington less money to play with.
Jay: Don't you think that's being a bit semantic, especially given that we're talking about a surplus (i.e., revenue the government would be collecting otherwise that it's no longer collecting).
But if you want to talk about cutting spending, I'm all for that, too.
Someone was quoted in the NYTimes today saying that there is nowhere for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal person to go.
Drop the "socially liberal" part and it's still every bit as accurate at the federal level.
20178. JayAckroyd - 5/24/2001 12:40:48 PM
The surplus is offset by the debt, Indy. If we fully commit the surplus to paying down the debt, and reduce spending, then we're being conservative fiscally. And have you noticed the spate of vanishing state surpluses? This may all be moot, and as someone pointed out upthread, reversed before the big numbers hit.
And yes, the point of that quote is that both parties favor a large and growing government.
20179. Ronski - 5/24/2001 12:43:45 PM
Both Jay and Indy are correct. There is nowhere to go for the socially liberal and truly fiscally conservative, or just the fiscally conservative. Except of course, the Libertarian Party, which, because it says what it means, languishes at one percent in the polls, wherever it manages to run a candidate.
I've been seeing references to a "rightward drift" in the country's governance. This is nonsense. The only thing that happens when the GOP gets elected is that it -- sometimes -- slows down the continuing leftward drift.
The way most people use "right" and "left" most of the time, the only way the government could move to the right is by shrinking its size. It never does so. It's not doing so under Bush.
And government size does not refer only to number of workers relative to the population. It inlcudes the scope of regulations, power over individuals that is transferred to unelected agencies, and so on.
20180. Ronski - 5/24/2001 12:46:02 PM
On the other hand, Ashcroft has had nice words to say about the Second Amendment, and Bush's faith-based initiative seems to be going nowhere, so all is not bleak.
20181. CalGal - 5/24/2001 12:48:33 PM
That's so funny, Ronski, I was about to post that.
Did anyone read about the slap Bush gave to Powell yesterday on his UN director pick?
20182. Dusty - 5/24/2001 12:49:10 PM
JayAckroyd Someone was quoted in the NYTimes today saying that there is nowhere for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal person to go.
Proof that the Libertarians need marketing help.
20183. Ronski - 5/24/2001 12:52:30 PM
Dusty,
It's proof that -- other than John Tierney's column -- the word Libertarian is usually excised by Times' editors.
And if that sounds entirely ludicrous, there is a case in Libertarian annals of a Carolina newspaper which actually has a policy of forbidding that word. Seriously.
20184. CalGal - 5/24/2001 12:53:09 PM
That's simply untrue, Dusty. Libertarians want far less government--and believe it should disappear almost entirely in certain areas. One can be fiscally conservative and still find that a ludicrous notion.
20185. JayAckroyd - 5/24/2001 12:53:25 PM
You know how I feel about Libertarians, Dusty.
20186. CalGal - 5/24/2001 12:54:49 PM
It's funny. This time last year, I really thought that the Republican party was going to change, moving back towards moderation. Instead, Bush's win sent it in the other direction. I wonder where this will all end up.
20187. Ronski - 5/24/2001 12:55:46 PM
I depends on the definition of the word, and whether we're talking "L" or "l."
I consider that if you want to lessen (but not necessarily eliminate) the role of government in both economic and social matters, that is a distinctly libertarian impulse. Or Classical-Liberal.
20188. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 12:56:23 PM
Jay:
Have you noticed the spate of vanishing state surpluses?
Yes. Even so, if governments have to spend more, I'd rather it be at the state as at the federal.
As far as the tax cut ever really happening, of course that's true--but you win your battles one at a time and at least now the onus will be on those wanting to grow government to raise taxes.
I also favor reducing the debt, but I think that would be an even harder course to stick to over the years than the tax cut. And paying it off too quickly has its drawbacks as well.
20189. OhioSTOPAS - 5/24/2001 12:59:21 PM
" . . . if governments have to spend more, I'd rather it be at the state as at the federal."
Why?
20190. JayAckroyd - 5/24/2001 1:01:43 PM
I consider that if you want to lessen (but not necessarily eliminate) the role of government in both economic and social matters, that is a distinctly libertarian impulse. Or Classical-Liberal.
But your seeing a policy position as having a libertarian motivation or not has no impact on its value. Classical Liberalism has its roots in utilitarianism, not an arbitrary commitment to a given right. That means that a liberal will concede a need for intervention if the case can be made the intervention serves the overall good. He is skeptical that such interventions exist, but does not deny them out of hand.
You might want to take a look at the link to the Fray archive that CalGal posted a while ago. There is an extensive discussion of this question.
20191. Dusty - 5/24/2001 1:09:25 PM
JayAckroyd
I amy well share your opinions about Libertarians more than you realize. If we could get rid of the libertarians and replace them with libertarians, we would be in much better shape. I am sure this is impossible in my lifetime, and I fear that it is structurally impossible.
20192. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 1:14:17 PM
That means that a liberal will concede a need for intervention if the case can be made the intervention serves the overall good. He is skeptical that such interventions exist, but does not deny them out of hand.
With some caution about "overall good," I think this is my philosophy as well. It's not just that I'm skeptical that such interventions exist, but that I'm skeptical whether they're best discovered by "philosopher kings" or through a myriad of individuals trying out all possible interventions in small scale "pilots" until the best solution becomes self-evident. Moreover, I strongly believe in limits to what the majority can do to the minority, regardless of whether the "overall good" is maximized by violating the minority's right to be left alone. That is, I'm not a majoritarian.
Ohio: I think it self-evident that most problems are best addressed by those closest to them.
20193. JayAckroyd - 5/24/2001 1:18:39 PM
If that last proviso held, education would be the most effectively addressed social intervention in America.
20194. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 1:27:23 PM
Jay: I assume you meant that as a quip, and not as a conditional hypothesis.
20195. CalGal - 5/24/2001 1:28:49 PM
Archives
Jay, you can add this to the butterscotch bar if you like.
20196. LadyChaos - 5/24/2001 1:39:00 PM
Well, well... Much as I worry that a Democrat Senate may be tempted to spend away what surplus is left after the tax cut, and much as I realize that the Dems are no better on issues like foreign policy and the Drug War than the Republicans, I must say that I am relieved that there will be some brakes applied to the steamrolling Bush agenda.
The problem is whether it will be the right kind of "brakes." If Jeffords' defection prevents Bush and Cheney's planned massive subsidization of the energy industry from taking effect, then I'm all for it. But the populist impulses among Dems may take up the Bush plan as a good idea. In that case, Jefford's defection will have had no discernible effect in one important policy arena.
More interesting is the judiciary committee aspect. The right-wing judiciary has been methodically destroying the bill of rights for years, now, so having the chance to temper Bush's judicial nominations will be a good thing.
20197. CalGal - 5/24/2001 1:42:26 PM
Indy and others are being a tad cavalier about the loss of the Senate--as is the President. A whole bunch of senior Republicans just lost their committee chairmanships, and that has to hurt. Even overlooking the power involved, it is a severe smack in career and job enjoyment considerations. A lot of moderate Republicans who will be affected by this can't be too happy.
Also, this really does seem to be a Bush failure. The White House apparently ignored all rumors about Jeffords leaving. Hardly a sensible reaction in a split Senate.
20198. Raskolnikov - 5/24/2001 1:47:14 PM
Quick. Turn on CNN. The US Supreme Court is overturning the Jeffords' defection.
20199. Ronski - 5/24/2001 1:47:24 PM
Cal,
Thanks for that link.
20200. Ronski - 5/24/2001 1:48:00 PM
Rask,
;-)
20201. Raskolnikov - 5/24/2001 1:49:26 PM
sorry. couldn't resist.
20202. CalGal - 5/24/2001 1:50:36 PM
Hey, Rask. Nice to see you.
It's also kind of fun to watch energy stocks take a hit today, even if it's only temporary.
20203. Ronski - 5/24/2001 1:52:08 PM
Are the caribou partying, yet?
20204. vonKreedon - 5/24/2001 1:53:01 PM
The Jeffords defection really puts the lie to Bush's "I'm a uniter, not a divider." line. The man can't even keep from dividing within his own party!
I particularly like that Jeffords is becoming an Independent rather than joining the Dems, just because the Democratic Party pisses me off so much. It would be nice if a bunch of fiscally conservative/socially and environmentally progressive members from both parties became Independent.
20205. Dusty - 5/24/2001 1:53:18 PM
Raskolnikov
Nice try, but it's been done
20206. Slackjaw - 5/24/2001 1:54:39 PM
Don't think the Jeffords defection will have much of a braking effect. His vote isn't really lost to the Republicans, since they didn't have it to count on before. Committee chairs are important for agenda control, but the Senate isn't the authoritarian body the House is (see Lott's recent concession on the campaign finance bill), and a razor this majority doesn't have the same impact on agenda control.
20207. vonKreedon - 5/24/2001 1:55:34 PM
Caribou are noted partyers. My understanding is that their preferred food is Amanita Muscaria. Of course, one of their other forms of nutrition is Lichen, so go figure.
20208. Dusty - 5/24/2001 1:56:18 PM
Raskolnikov
See Message # 20137 by Fielding
and in the same spirit
Message # 20104 by Ohio
20209. Ronski - 5/24/2001 1:57:50 PM
Well, on my regional cable news channel last night, there was a discussion led by a breathless young Chris Matthews-wannabee on Should Senators be ALLOWED (emphasis added) to switch parties?
20210. CalGal - 5/24/2001 1:58:17 PM
Are the caribou partying, yet?
Ha. I liked that.
Slack,
Any matters that stall in committee due to a tie vote will not be able to be called to the floor for a full vote. Ask Ted Olsen whether that's a big difference.
20211. CalGal - 5/24/2001 1:59:15 PM
Did anyone watch Lehrer's discussion on it last night?
20212. Dusty - 5/24/2001 1:59:33 PM
JayAckroyd
If that last proviso held, education would be the most effectively addressed social intervention in America.
20213. Slackjaw - 5/24/2001 2:00:47 PM
Yes Cal, they can be called to the floor. That's what discharge is for. No committee can ever really force the floor to do anything.
Olsen's vote got into its current situation because people knew what would happen if it got called out.
20214. Fielding - 5/24/2001 2:01:30 PM
Fair disclosure: My post came from Rask's idea, expressed off-line.
20215. Dusty - 5/24/2001 2:02:31 PM
Ronski
Mathews must have been reading the Mote—Ace waxed on about that subject yesterday.
20216. CalGal - 5/24/2001 2:02:35 PM
Of course, government has closer to a monpoply at this level.
Our education is not the envy of, say, Europe. Does Europe have a monopoly on schools below the college level?
In fact, our education is perfectly okay with governent "monopoly"--if you can call something a monopoly when anyone can go to private or home school whenever they like. It's poverty that fucks with our statistics, not the government.
20217. Dusty - 5/24/2001 2:03:48 PM
Fielding
Oh sure, now you fess up.
And if Rask had never shown up, you would have taken credit for that bon mot to the grave.
20218. CalGal - 5/24/2001 2:05:42 PM
Slack,
So how is it, then, that the Republicans were able to stall so many votes on judicial nominees?
In the case of Olson,the vote was tied and the papers said that because of the powersharing agreement, Lott had the ability to call a full vote without the committee's approval. The vote was cancelled because Bush wanted to make nice, but the papers said that without Lott's ability to do so,the nomination would have been stalled.
It is possible that the papers are incorrect on this, obviously. But both the Post and the Times? Or possibly you are talking of some other procedure.
20219. Dusty - 5/24/2001 2:09:02 PM
Lichen suffers from poor marketing.
I propose a new slogan:
Lichen—what's not to like?
OR
Try lichen—you'll lichen it.
20220. Raskolnikov - 5/24/2001 2:09:13 PM
Dusty: damn, they beat me to it. Serves me right for being slow on the draw.
20221. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 2:12:59 PM
After reading Jeffords' statement, I retract what I said about its being largely Trent Lott's fault. Even though I think it was Lott's job to keep him home, it's evident that the guy was pissed at Bush.
Don't know what he sounded like in person, but the text doesn't do much for my opinion of him.
20222. Dusty - 5/24/2001 2:16:00 PM
Slackjaw
House bills can be called to the floor over the objections of the committee using a discharge petition, but not in the Senate.
Enacting Laws
Reforming the discharge petition was one of the high profile issues of Gingrich.
20223. Dusty - 5/24/2001 2:17:49 PM
Slackjaw
There are procedures to get around the committee action in the Senate, but I don't know what they are called. So you are correct, but it isn't called a discharge petitition in the Senate.
20224. CalGal - 5/24/2001 2:18:18 PM
Indy,
Yes, it's pretty clear that the problem was Bush. But I don't see why you say he comes off badly.
20225. LadyChaos - 5/24/2001 2:20:09 PM
Message # 20209,
A law making it illegal for congressmen to switch parties during a term in office would probably be unconstitutional.
Of course, "strict constructionists" like Ace don't believe that the Constitution should matter much, just as long as Congress has passed a law.
20226. Slackjaw - 5/24/2001 2:21:28 PM
A discharge motion, Senate rule 27...anyone can move that a bill or resolution in committee be brought to consideration in the chamber. If the papers used "would have" as a prediction, they were probably right. If they used it as a statement of procedure, they were wrong.
Using a discharge motion requires a certain level of agreement on the floor. If that agreement is not present, it will be possible for a committee to tie up the motion. But then even if the motion were considered on the floor, it would lack the agreement necessary to stop gutting amendments, a filibuster, or just an outright loss.
20227. Slackjaw - 5/24/2001 2:23:57 PM
wait...it can't be rule 27. It must be in the teens. I'll check.
20228. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 2:24:10 PM
Cal:
You almost have to see a speech to judge it fairly, but what bugs me is the "Vermont is so wonderfully great because it's so independent and has such a tremendous social conscience. BTW, what I'm doing demonstrates independence and social conscience."
At least he did admit that this moment was of "much smaller consequence" than Vermont's being the first state to outlaw slavery.
Independent-minded people usually have a hefty dose of ego. I should know. (smirk)
20229. CalGal - 5/24/2001 2:27:24 PM
Indy,
I did see the speech. I took all of that as contextual and introductory (as well as a nod to his home team), certainly not his reason for leaving. The meat of his reason was here:
In the past, without the presidency, the various wings of the Republican Party in Congress have had some freedom to argue and ultimately to shape the party's agenda. The election of President Bush changed that dramatically. We don't live in a parliamentary system, but it is only natural to expect that people such as myself, who have been honored with positions of leadership, will largely support the president's agenda.
And yet, more and more, I find I cannot. Those who don't know me may have thought I took pleasure in resisting the president's budget, or that I enjoyed the limelight. Nothing could be further from the truth. I had serious, substantive reservations about that budget, and the decisions it sets in place for today and the future.
Looking ahead, I can see more and more instances where I will disagree with the President on very fundamental issues: the issues of choice, the direction of the judiciary, tax and spending decisions, missile defense, energy and the environment, and a host of other issues, large and small.
20230. Dusty - 5/24/2001 2:28:13 PM
Indiana Jones
You don't see references to the Sedition Act in the opening paragraphs of speechs all that often these days. (He must be taking a slap at Adams.)
20231. CalGal - 5/24/2001 2:29:57 PM
But then even if the motion were considered on the floor, it would lack the agreement necessary to stop gutting amendments, a filibuster, or just an outright loss.
Not true, really. There are all sorts of things voted on that many senators would rather oppose or ignore altogether--but if it comes to a vote they will have to support it. So the power to stifle a bill is not insignificant.
20232. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 2:31:11 PM
Dusty: The only Sedition Act(s) I knew about was WWI, but after your comment I looked it up and saw there was an earlier one from 1798. I assume (John) Adams was involved with that one?
20233. Dusty - 5/24/2001 2:31:54 PM
An unimpressive speech.
But this sentence is intriguing:
Three of these four men disagreed with my decision, but I hope each understood my reasons. And it is entirely possible that the fourth[Daschle] may well have second thoughts down the road.
Wonder if we will have reasons to reference it in the future.
20234. Stumbo - 5/24/2001 2:33:13 PM
Anyone who uses the word "choice" to mean "choice as to whether to have an abortion" in a non-abortion-specific context is a moron.
But then, Jeffords is hardly the only sinner in that regard.
20235. CalGal - 5/24/2001 2:33:43 PM
He's not joining the Democrats, after all. And I doubt Daschle will take him lightly.
20236. Slackjaw - 5/24/2001 2:36:13 PM
From the House web site:
It is easier to circumvent committees in the Senate than in the House, primarily because Senators generally have the right to offer non-germane amendments (commonly known as "riders") to measures being considered on the floor.(6) For example, a Senator could offer an amendment containing the text of a bill blocked in committee. A Senator also could use Rule XIV (discussed earlier) to bypass a committee that has not reported a particular measure. In this situation, the Senator would reintroduce the bill, demand two readings, and then object to the second reading. Under Rule XIV, the measure would be placed directly on the Calendar of Business. Other Senate procedures for bypassing committees, such as the motion to discharge a committee and the motion to suspend the rules, are employed so infrequently they are not discussed here. Senate committees are sometimes discharged by unanimous consent.
Rule 17 covers discharge in the Senate.
20237. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 2:37:31 PM
Cal: Yes, I conceded in post 20221 that he certainly had a hard-on for Bush--though whether it was all policy or not, you have to read tea leaves and not just the speech. But it's never sufficient for politicians to say, "You know these people I was part of for umpteen years? I don't much agree with them anymore and want to change uniforms. Mostly because the new manager pissed me off."
20238. Dusty - 5/24/2001 2:37:35 PM
LadyChaos
FTR, I disagree with Ace. I think it behooves Senators to think very hard about this decision, and there are good reasons that Senators should decide to make the switch at the time of the next election, but I wouldn't favor any law prohibiting a change.
{Of course, I'm biased. I have a secret plan to get a majority of Congresscritters to join the libertarian [note small "l"] party midterm.)
20239. Slackjaw - 5/24/2001 2:38:58 PM
There are all sorts of things voted on that many senators would rather oppose or ignore altogether--but if it comes to a vote they will have to support it.
Of course they wouldn't. They abstain. Then they deal with the rare electoral fallout by inserting irrelevant supportive remarks in the record, so they can say they really did report it without doing so in a vote.
20240. Fielding - 5/24/2001 2:38:58 PM
Dusty:
"Oh sure, now you fess up.
And if Rask had never shown up, you would have taken credit for that bon mot to the grave."
Well, nobody had commented, so I didn't want to blame Rask for something that wasn't well received.
Also, it was my idea to add the fake link.
But, in essence, you got me.
20241. Dusty - 5/24/2001 2:39:58 PM
Indiana Jones
I liked the (implicit) admission that he comes from a long line of undistinguished Senators.
20242. Slackjaw - 5/24/2001 2:40:18 PM
"really did report" should be "really did support."
Anyway, so the Senate does have discharge, but they don't have to use it because it's so easy for the floor to circumvent uncooperative committees.
20243. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 2:40:39 PM
Hahaha, Dusty. Thanks for pointing that out.
20244. CalGal - 5/24/2001 2:42:50 PM
They abstain. Then they deal with the rare electoral fallout by inserting irrelevant supportive remarks in the record, so they can say they really did report it without doing so in a vote.
They can't always abstain. For example, a fair amount of Dems voted for the marriage tax repeal and something else that I can't remember right now last year, secure in the knowledge that Clinton would veto it. It gave them cover during an election year.
20245. Dusty - 5/24/2001 2:44:07 PM
Indiana Jones
Yes.
The Alien and Sedition Acts. Until today, I thought it was a single law with a compound title. I just learned (or re-learned) today that it was two separate laws. (The "s" should have tipped me off.)
Adams didn't use the Alien Act, but he did use the Sedition Act, partly to help crush the Republicans.
What goes around, comes around.
20246. LadyChaos - 5/24/2001 2:45:43 PM
I suggest that Lott, McConnell, Bush and the rest of the Freepers who are now attacking Jeffords sit down and read Yertle the Turtle.
Dusty,
The Libertarians have been so bad at getting out their message, I'm afraid that a coup might be the only hope for them.
20247. Ronski - 5/24/2001 2:48:26 PM
Pani,
And we expressly forbid initiating coups in our oath of allegiance to the Party.
20248. CalGal - 5/24/2001 2:48:37 PM
Roundtable discussion in Lehrer Newshour
Good analysis all round.
20249. Slackjaw - 5/24/2001 2:50:46 PM
Yes, true enough Cal. So they do something with an equivalent outcome. They hand off to avoid the fallout, knowing full well what's about to happen.
And that outcome is the same, policy wise, as: if there's not enough floor agreement, the motion fails. If there is enough, it passes.
20250. Dusty - 5/24/2001 2:50:47 PM
A coup requires a modicum of organization.
Either that, or really, really big guns.
20251. Slackjaw - 5/24/2001 2:52:18 PM
In any case some of them certainly could have abstained. Not just in the metaphysical sense of "could," but in the real electoral sense. But why cross the street if you don't have to?
20252. Ronski - 5/24/2001 2:54:10 PM
Indy,
Yes, as you suspected, Jeffords does have an ego. He has his advance staff pass out "Thank You, Jim" buttons in front of his entourage as he (1) campaigns through the streets, (2) shows up at the annual blessings of the chairlifts, and (3) crowns the local Maple Syrup Queen at sugarbushes around the state every April.
(Okay, they don't actually do the last two.)
20253. glendajean - 5/24/2001 3:01:03 PM
A US Senator with an ego ... that's a new one. But I like the blessing of the chairlifts.
If Adams was crushing Republicans, it was of the Democratic variety (i.e., Jefferson's party).
20254. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 3:01:30 PM
He has his advance staff pass out "Thank You, Jim" buttons in front of his entourage
Maybe he should send one to Daschle.
20255. Ronski - 5/24/2001 3:02:51 PM
Indy,
:-) !
20256. glendajean - 5/24/2001 3:05:04 PM
Cokie Roberts said this morning on NPR that one effect of this could be retirement of men who liked being chairmen but who are getting close to retirement age: she listed Helms and Domenici as potential retirees.
20257. Dusty - 5/24/2001 3:10:57 PM
And we expressly forbid initiating coups in our oath of allegiance to the Party.
Curses, foiled again.
20258. glendajean - 5/24/2001 3:17:44 PM
Good link, Cal, from the NewsHour.
20259. AceofSpades - 5/24/2001 3:27:40 PM
20215. Dusty - 5/24/01 7:02:31 PM
Ronski
Mathews must have been reading the Mote—Ace waxed on about that subject yesterday.
20225. LadyChaos - 5/24/01 7:20:09 PM
Message # 20209,
A law making it illegal for congressmen to switch parties during a term in office would probably be unconstitutional.
I did not say party-switching should be illegal. Ever. You are confusing me with someone else.
Party-switching has to be legal, for several reasons. One, because no law could restrain someone from simply voting with the opposite party on every issue, including organization and control of Congress, even if a law made it illegal to nominally switch parties (Jeffords had voted almost straight-Democratic long before this). Two, because the Constiution doesn't make party loyalty a criteria for service in Congress. The US Supreme Court has been very vigilant about striking down any additional requirements not mentioned in the Constitution.
That said, I wouldn't mind if a law were passed which required party-switchers to stand for re-election within a year. Seems reasonable to me. But this would probably be unconstitutional without an amendment.
I make enough arguments here. There is no need to attribute arguments to me that I didn't make.
20260. Dusty - 5/24/2001 3:37:19 PM
Ace,
Geez Louise, take it easy.
I was trying to give you credit for raising the issue, ahead of the news media.
20261. AceofSpades - 5/24/2001 3:41:43 PM
Take it easy? I am simply correcting an error.
And I don't want "credit" for an obvious proposal, and an unconstitutional one at that.
20262. glendajean - 5/24/2001 4:08:07 PM
From washingtonpost.com:
Lott Seeks Quick Olson Vote
20263. LadyChaos - 5/24/2001 4:44:13 PM
Ace,
Sorry. Someone mentioned your name in conjunction with that issue, and I realize that I jumped to the wrong conclusion about your position on it.
20264. Ronski - 5/24/2001 5:03:46 PM
AP reports that Lincoln Chafee has requested a meeting with the White House "to improve his relationship" with President Bush.
He will get the meeting, and more.
20265. Fielding - 5/24/2001 5:06:59 PM
Its kind of cool that the moderate Republican Senators are dragging Bush, kicking and screamin, back to the mainstream.
20266. AceofSpades - 5/24/2001 5:31:09 PM
Jeffords is not really a moderate. Breaux, Democrat from Louisiana (?), is a "moderate." Jeffords is a liberal.
Jeffords actually only agreed to support the compromise tax cut after fifteen Democrats had crossed party lines to support it.
He may not be as liberal as Daschle or Wellstone, but he's liberal. He is only "moderate" in the sense that liberals mean it, i.e., a liberal.
20267. glendajean - 5/24/2001 5:31:46 PM
Consider this quote from today's W. Post Op-ed page, a column by Bill Kristol:
A couple of weeks ago, one senior Republican explained to the Weekly Standard that "there's a one- or two-year plan to punish him [Jeffords] for his behavior. And it's stuff that may hurt him, but stuff that's not going to draw a significant amount of attention. So they're going to get him." Who got whom? But if the Bush White House comes to appreciate the utility of humility, the Jeffords departure could be a valuable learning experience.
As they used to say in Texas, a come to Jesus moment. I bet Chafee gets some consideration for his concerns.
20268. Ronski - 5/24/2001 5:33:09 PM
20269. Fielding - 5/24/2001 5:33:10 PM
Ace:
"Jeffords is not really a moderate. Breaux, Democrat from Louisiana (?), is a "moderate." Jeffords is a liberal."
You think Jesse Helms is a liberal.
20270. AceofSpades - 5/24/2001 5:33:12 PM
AP reports that Lincoln Chafee has requested a meeting with the White House "to improve his relationship" with President Bush.
He will get the meeting, and more.
I doubt it. There is no reason to mollify him anymore. The R's have lost (nominal) control of the Senate; there isn't any particular reason to make all sorts of liberal concessions to keep a single liberal vote.
If you're going to lose his vote, you're going to lose his vote. Why make additional concessions?
20271. Ronski - 5/24/2001 5:34:47 PM
Ace,
Because, I think, there is still the possibility of regaining the Senate through a Miller or even a Baucus defection. A small but real possibility.
20272. Fielding - 5/24/2001 5:35:18 PM
"If you're going to lose his vote, you're going to lose his vote. Why make additional concessions?"
A second defection would be a devastating blow to Bush's image.
20273. glendajean - 5/24/2001 5:36:45 PM
A second defefection would certain clash with "uniter, not divider" mantle.
20274. Ronski - 5/24/2001 5:36:47 PM
And, you have the other two members of the Gang of Four to worry about, who are not quite as liberal as Chafee, but nearly so. Freepers and others may be telling them all to go, but I don't think the White House wants to see the Republican numbers in the Senate decreased even more.
20275. Fielding - 5/24/2001 5:42:35 PM
"A second defefection would certain clash with "uniter, not divider" mantle."
I think "uniter, not divider" has been completely discredited by now. It has the same level of credibility as "Read my lips -- no new taxes" and "I did not have sex with that woman!"
20276. glendajean - 5/24/2001 5:46:28 PM
I read somewhere recently that the Democrats have 14 Senators up for reelection next year and the Republicans have 20. If that is true, neither Bush or Lott would want to see the D side of the aisle increase prior to the election.
20277. glendajean - 5/24/2001 5:49:14 PM
Jeffords was the chief Republican co-sponsor of ENDA (The Employment Non-Discrimination Act) -- makes employment discrimination based on orientation illegal. With a new majority leader, ENDA may get another floor vote this year. The last one was in 1996 when it passed the Senate along with DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act).
20278. Ronski - 5/24/2001 5:59:07 PM
Speaking of which, the New York State Senate leadership (GOP) may allow a vote on the gay rights bill that passed the Democratic Assembly as usual earlier this year. If Joe Bruno, the majority leader, does so, it will be because he knows it will pass (we have this system where nothing gets voted on in the Senate unless the GOP has already determined for certain what the outcome will be, kind of like a lawyer never asking a question he does not already know the answer to). But if it happens this year, the main reason is that the GOP wants to seem more liberal and socially tolerant, as they did when they passed a hate crimes bill last year they had previously held up for I dunno how long.
I have mixed feelings about all of this, as usual.
20279. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 6:16:18 PM
gj: Jeffords did vote for DOMA, however. (Pretty sure I read that today.)
20280. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2001 6:17:45 PM
Ronski: Good link in 20268 (though I think Rockwell's site is usually considered nutty).
20281. glendajean - 5/24/2001 6:19:32 PM
I think that he did. I used to know the entire list (it was short), but no longer retain the names.
Daschle became a co-sponsor a couple of years ago. Interesting to see if it gets another floor vote.
20282. glendajean - 5/24/2001 6:20:20 PM
That is, the list of those who voted against DOMA (that was the short list).
20283. Ronski - 5/24/2001 6:21:28 PM
It is a little nutty, even I will admit.
And just about everybody voted for DOMA. The utter and complete federalization of marriage seemed like a politically wise move at the time, to many.
20284. Ronski - 5/24/2001 6:22:55 PM
glenda,
With Daschle, you mean ENDA, right?
20285. glendajean - 5/24/2001 6:24:03 PM
Ronski -- yes. Sadly, DOMA is already the law of the land.
Good night. I'm off to my homeland for the weekend.
20286. Ronski - 5/24/2001 6:26:19 PM
Nothing stands forever.
20287. Cellar Door - 5/24/2001 10:35:43 PM
Slavery was the law of the land too, once.
So was segregation.
And women didn't get the vote until -- when was that again?
20288. JJBiener - 5/24/2001 10:43:17 PM
Cellar - And women didn't get the vote until -- when was that again?
When the Republicans pushed it the amendment through Congress and got it ratified by the states. If we had waited for Democrats, we'd still be waiting.
20289. msgreer - 5/24/2001 11:24:46 PM
JJ
PLEASSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEE.
20290. Cellar Door - 5/24/2001 11:53:48 PM
So we can count on the Republican party to repeal DOMA and sign ENDA ?
20291. jexster - 5/25/2001 8:02:15 AM
It was described yesterday as the agonizing culmination of a slowly building process in which a lifelong Republican examined his own place in the modern GOP and concluded that he no longer belonged
20292. jexster - 5/25/2001 8:10:05 AM
Fuzzy Math
"I respect Senator Jeffords, but respectfully, I couldn't disagree more." Bush added, "I was elected to get things done on behalf of the American people, and to work with both Republicans and Democrats, and we're doing just that."
20293. jexster - 5/25/2001 8:23:54 AM
On the eve of Bush's visit to the Golden State and his meeting with The Governor, Houston's Reliant energy has promised to cut its prices...IF California and the Feds give it air pollution breaks....
Now we see why Houston is the nation's most polluted city or at best fighting with LA for the honor
20294. jexster - 5/25/2001 9:45:52 AM
ASHINGTON, May 24 — Senator James M. Jeffords's defection from the Republican Party cannot be dismissed as the isolated case of an exasperated lawmaker who felt that he was not getting proper attention from the White House.
Many influential Democrats and Republicans agree that Mr. Jeffords's decision to become an independent is a striking example of the perils of President Bush's strategy of governing from the right
NYT
20295. jexster - 5/25/2001 10:27:50 AM
What Ken Lay Wants, His Moron Gives
Like I've said countless times...California has sent 13 Billion bucks to these scumbags in less than a year via their manipulated market
Curtis Hébert Jr., Washington's top electricity regulator, said he had barely settled into his new job this year when he had an unsettling telephone conversation with Kenneth L. Lay, the head of the nation's largest electricity trader, the Enron Corporation.
Corruption
20296. Fielding - 5/25/2001 10:29:02 AM
JJ:
"When the Republicans pushed it the amendment through Congress and got it ratified by the states. If we had waited for Democrats, we'd still be waiting."
This is true. But that was 80 years ago, before the realignment of the political parties in 1932. Surely you do not see today's Republican party as the champion of equal rights, do you?
20297. JJBiener - 5/25/2001 11:02:53 AM
Fielding - There is no major party now which champions equal rights. Democrats try to get preferences for their constituents and Republicans try to stop them. Both parties are more concerned with pointing fingers and scoring points than solving problems.
20298. jexster - 5/25/2001 11:05:08 AM
Democrats try to get preferences for their constituents and Republicans try to stop them. Though the accounts of the discussion differ, that it took place at all illustrates Enron's considerable influence in Washington, especially at the commission, the agency authorized to ensure fair prices in the nation's wholesale electricity and natural gas markets, Enron's main business.
Mr. Lay has been one of Mr. Bush's largest campaign contributors, and no other energy company gave more money to Republican causes last year than Enron
20299. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/25/2001 11:12:13 AM
jj- "Both parties are more concerned with pointing fingers and scoring points than solving problems."
That's untrue JJ--the R's have solved their "problems" with the Fat-Cat tax cuts, and by usurping the DOD, DOJ, EPA, DOE et al -- now it's time to address their global fear and paranoia with Star Wars.
20300. JJBiener - 5/25/2001 11:13:00 AM
Jex - We were talking about civil rights, not constituents in general. Both parties dance with who brung 'em.
20301. jexster - 5/25/2001 11:16:12 AM
and the democrats dance with latinos, gays, asians and blacks
Bush dances with Lay...and DeLay
20302. Fielding - 5/25/2001 11:17:00 AM
JJ:
"There is no major party now which champions equal rights. Democrats try to get preferences for their constituents and Republicans try to stop them. Both parties are more concerned with pointing fingers and scoring points than solving problems."
It is amusing to watch you go into contortions to avoid saying anything good about the Democrats, or anything bad about the Republicans.
Most Republicans would acknowledge that the Democrats are more interested in equal rights, although many disagree with the means by which the Democrats would achieve such an end (higher taxes on the rich, affirmative action, social programs, more funding for education, etc.). Surely you must have noticed this in your travels.
20303. jexster - 5/25/2001 11:18:47 AM
One of our problems is that we do not have the expertise to truly unravel the complex arbitrage activities of a company like Enron," he said, adding, "we're trying to do it now, and we may have some results soon."
Well I hope Hebert's boyz and girlz work fast, very fast...Krusty the Klown is about to shit can him
20304. JJBiener - 5/25/2001 11:31:46 AM
Fielding - It is amusing to watch you go into contortions to avoid saying anything good about the Democrats, or anything bad about the Republicans.
Maybe I wasn't clear. Neither party right now is worth a shit.
Most Republicans would acknowledge that the Democrats are more interested in equal rights
Affirmative action programs favored by Democrats like quotas, preferences and set-asides are not about equal rights, they are about giving preferences to their constituents. Redistributing income is simply buying votes.
Republicans aren't any better. They oppose things that can actually do some good like ENDA and hate crimes legislation.
20305. Fielding - 5/25/2001 11:49:21 AM
JJ:
"Maybe I wasn't clear. Neither party right now is worth a shit."
Well, that's true, but for different reasons. The Republicans have no heart, and the Democrats have no brain. And both are whores. But they are not evil in the same way.
20306. JJBiener - 5/25/2001 12:00:11 PM
Fielding - I don't think there is a heart or brain left in either party. They are both obsessed with political power as an end in itself. They appeal to different constiuencies in order to gain that power, but it is the power they are interested in. You may like what the Democrats say. I may like what the Republicans say. Their actions however betray them both.
20307. Fielding - 5/25/2001 12:07:11 PM
JJ:
"You may like what the Democrats say. I may like what the Republicans say."
This bothers me a little bit. Although people like Ace view anyone to the left of Jesse Helms as a liberal, I'm really a centrist.
I usually split my ticket, and in the last election I voted for exactly one Democrat and one Republican, both of whom lost (I didn't vote local races because I had just moved). I will generally vote for Republicans if they aren't too conservative on social issues, or Democrats if they are not too liberal on spending issues. I also factor in character and ability to govern, so I would never vote for somebody like Ted Kennedy (character) or Jerry Browne (ability to govern).
20308. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:09:46 PM
Kausfiles:
Politics and the Rainesian language:
"The House voted to approve ... the legislation, which calls for a 29 percent increase in spending to $24 billion for next year. The measure was written by Republicans and Democrats using President Bush's plan as a blueprint. ..." --NYT, page A1, 5/24/01.
"Mr. Bush's rejection of increased education spending in the budget has made a mockery of his pledge to 'leave no child behind' ...". -- Howell Raines' NYT editorial page, same day.
It's lucky the guy who produces that sort of unthinking hackneyed propaganda isn't taking over the whole paper! ... (5/24)
20309. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:11:57 PM
FROM THE RIGHT?: The Democratic Party line, faithfully repeated as "news" by Rick Berke in the New York Times, is that Jim Jeffords' defection is a result of Bush foolishly governing "from the right." Huh? The only hard evidence of conservatism is the budget deal and tax cut, which Jeffords supported. The other major legislative achievements poised for passage are the Education Bill - a deeply bipartisan measure crafted by Ted Kennedy and boosting federal education spending by 30 percent - and the campaign Finance Reform Bill, crafted by John McCain. Ashcroft's tenure at Justice has been moderate, bordering on liberal. Environmental policy is barely distinguishable from Clinton's, except for terrible p.r., and a belated recognition that we need more energy sources. On abortion, which Berke dutifully cites, the administration has been completely AWOL. There hasn't even been an attempt at a partial birth abortion ban, perhaps the minimum measure sought by the religious right. The administration is strikingly diverse on racial and gender matters and has reached out to gay Americans. Berke hauls out all the usual blowhards - from Bill Kristol to Bob Strauss (remember him?) to make what is a completely unsubstantiated case. Is this a sign of what Howell Raines has in store for the whole paper? Propaganda disguised as news? At the very least, this is over-interpreting Jeffords. If he hadn't been able to tip the balance of the Senate, this would be a non-story, a quirky little regional piece on a fickle leftie trapped in a Republican Party were he clearly hasn't belonged for twenty years. Jeffords was fine with the Gingrich revolution but balks at Bush? Give me a break.
-- Andrew Sullivan
Just thought I'd throw a bucket of cold reality on Jexster's liberal-rag spam.
20310. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:19:32 PM
Fielding:
I consider George Pataki, John Breaux, and Olympia Snowe to be "moderates."
I believe that moderates exist in Congress --but there aren't many of them, due to the fact that political parties naturally pull their candidates to their respective political poles.
But you are the type of Stalinist-doublespeaking liberal who insists that anyone to left of Ralph Nader is a "moderate" because YOU are to the left of Ralph Nader.
The "political center" is NOT defined by YOU.
I have no problem acknowledging I am right-of-center and conservative (this despite the fact that I've voted for -- get this -- Dukakis and Clinton). Why is it that every liberal insists he is a "moderate"?
Jeffords was the SIXTY-SECOND Senator to support the watered down tax cut compromise; he only supported it after all true moderates all supported it. He voted against Clarence Thomas (while many true moderates, like Sam Nunn, voted for him.) He voted against impeachment. He voted against Reagan's tax cuts.
He is, in other words, a liberal.
I understand that many moderate Republicans are pro-choice. I'm pro-choice as a policy question myself, though I'm not a moderate.
But if someone is liberal on social issues and liberal on the issue of goverment spending/government growth/tax cuts, by precisely what lights should such a person be judged a "moderate"?
Christ. Bill Bradley supported the Reagan tax cuts. Jeffords didn't.
20311. JJBiener - 5/25/2001 12:20:03 PM
Fielding - I'm really a centrist.
I am aware of where you stand politically. That is why I used the word "may". It was just a point of contrast.
20312. Fielding - 5/25/2001 12:20:37 PM
"The only hard evidence of conservatism is the budget deal and tax cut, which Jeffords supported."
Ace, how could you quote something so utterly stupid? Jeffords did not support Bush's tax plan, that's what caused the rift in the first place.
20313. Fielding - 5/25/2001 12:21:04 PM
JJ:
Cool.
20314. rubberducky - 5/25/2001 12:21:48 PM
Bush has 'has reached out to gay Americans'?
please.
what a fuckin' joke.
20315. rubberducky - 5/25/2001 12:22:02 PM
20316. JJBiener - 5/25/2001 12:22:12 PM
Toys
20317. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:23:28 PM
One of those think-tanks that rates politicians as far as conservative/liberal bent rated Jeffords as 24 points (on a 100 point scale) less conservative than an actual moderate -- Olympia Snowe -- and 25 points more liberal than Snowe.
I grant that Snowe is a "moderate." She is socially liberal and a split-the-difference moderate on government growth and tax cuts/government spending.
But I cannot accept the principle that someone who is 24 points LESS conservative/25 points MORE liberal than Snowe (who scores somewhere around a 55 on "conserativeness") is a "moderate."
If that's a "moderate," then there are no liberals other than Barry Sanders. But then, that's what liberals -- forever running from the term "liberal" -- actually believe, I guess.
20318. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:25:40 PM
"Ace, how could you quote something so utterly stupid? Jeffords did not support Bush's tax plan, that's what caused the rift in the first place."
Jeffords supported the $1.35 T compromise (though the 62d and last Senator to do so) and joined the Republicans in defeating poison-pill amendments to the bill.
20319. Fielding - 5/25/2001 12:25:54 PM
Ace:
I don't know why you are trying to argue with me about Jeffords.
My views are more or less typical of the median third of American spectrum of political thought. If that makes me a liberal, than most Americans are liberal, which makes the term pretty meaningless.
20320. jexster - 5/25/2001 12:26:17 PM
One Down, Three To Go
And the Grand Old Poopstain will be purged!
Free at last...free at last!
20321. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:28:47 PM
"My views are more or less typical of the median third of American spectrum of political thought. If that makes me a liberal, than most Americans are liberal, which makes the term pretty meaningless. "
Incorrect. Your views are more or less typical of the "moderate" segment of extremely liberal areas of the country.
This is another thing that annoys me about liberals -- they define, Soviet-Style, half the country as "non persons."
I would be considered a flaming liberal in the South. But that is hardly the relevant criterion; the South is not America.
Liberals, however, believe that "America" consists only of the Upper West Side of Manhattan, Greenwhich Village, Providencetown and San Fransisco.
20322. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:30:24 PM
"My views are more or less typical of the median third of American spectrum of political thought. If that makes me a liberal, than most Americans are liberal, which makes the term pretty meaningless. "
-- Fielding
"How did Nixon get elected? No one I know voted for him." -- Liberal Manhattanite Pauline Kael expressing bewilderment on the election of Nixon, who carried 46+ states in 1972
20323. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:30:58 PM
Was it 49 states? I think it was 49 states.
20324. jexster - 5/25/2001 12:33:00 PM
Bush promised Jeffords that he'd go with the Senate and fully fund Special Education programs for disabled kids...
Then DeLay got into the act...and the rest is history
When I asked an aide to one of the moderates what the Republicans could have said to dissuade Jeffords, he replied: "What, 'We're going to be nice to you now'? How could he believe that after the last four years? Would he have to get it in writing? ...
20325. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:36:28 PM
Fielding:
As a general rule, if you find yourself always on the opposite side of an argument from a conservative, that's a pretty good hint that you're a liberal.
Unless you think that "moderates" and conservatives are such natural enemies. Which only liberals believe.
You know who the moderates are? They're the ones happy about getting a tax cut.
Not the ones whining about how the Democrats "rolled over" for the tax cut. Those folks would be liberals -- you know, the one third of the Senate (approximately) that voted against the tax cut, and the one third of the country (less than that, actually) who is opposed to the tax cut.
20326. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:39:02 PM
PS: Moderates also support restrictions on abortion, from the ban on partial birth abortion to parental-notification.
It is, indeed, a "moderate" position to support abortion rights, in that 55%+ of the country supports such right. To be against certain restrictions, however, casts you as a liberal -- moderates favor such restrictions.
I can provide the polling date to prove this, if you're going to be an idiot about it. But I trust you've actually seen such polling data before.
20327. Fielding - 5/25/2001 12:41:19 PM
"Was it 49 states? I think it was 49 states."
49 states plus DC. Only Massachusetts went to McGovern. The Upper West Side voted for McGovern.
20328. Indiana Jones - 5/25/2001 12:44:44 PM
I think Jeffords also voted for HRC's failed health care plan. Now that's pretty liberal.
20329. rubberducky - 5/25/2001 12:44:51 PM
in other news...
After months of wrangling, the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday passed watered-down legislation to address the pesky issue of spam.
The legislation merely makes it illegal for companies or individuals to use fake return addresses when sending unsolicited email. While there's also a new provision that would require pornographic messages to be appropriately labeled, the final bill was stripped of any of the more hard-hitting requirements, such as allowing Internet service providers (ISPs) and consumers to sue companies that continue sending spam after they have been asked to stop.
Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., who authored the original bill with the more stringent requirements, said she was disappointed that the committee voted to pare down her legislation. However, she noted that there are still a few legislative steps between now and when the bill could get passed into law, and she says she will work to get the enforcement provisions back into the bill.
"You have a right to stop telemarketers from calling you," Wilson said in a statement. "There is an outright federal ban on junk faxes. You even have a right to stop junk mail from coming to your regular mailbox. You should have the right to tell a company to stop sending junk email to your in-box and the in-boxes of your children."
what a waste of time. technology will find ways around this silliness. just delete it for christ's sake. spam is maddening, but it is all part-n-parcel to having an e-mail account. surely there are more important things to worry with.
20330. Fielding - 5/25/2001 12:45:52 PM
Ace:
"As a general rule, if you find yourself always on the opposite side of an argument from a conservative, that's a pretty good hint that you're a liberal."
I fight with liberals far more than conservatives. Of course, I know more liberals than conservative. Also, most of the people I discuss politics with are very intelligent, and the highly intelligent are less likely to be rabid conservatives than moderate conservatives.
BTW, true conservatives don't want a tax cut the size that Bush wants. True conservatives prefer a smaller tax cut, with more of the national debt being paid down. Liberals want to spend more of the surplus. So I'm probably more conservative than you in this instance.
20331. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:46:22 PM
I think Jeffords also voted for HRC's failed health care plan.
He did. That was the one I was trying to remember, but it escaped me.
Hee, hee, hee. "Moderate" Jeffords voted for HillaryCare, while 60+ Democrats didn't.
20332. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:50:06 PM
BTW, true conservatives don't want a tax cut the size that Bush wants.
Laugh. Riiiiiiiight. Let us not take the word of hundreds of conservative think-tankers, who want a BIGGER tax cut; let us take Fielding's word for what "true conservatives" want.
True conservatives prefer a smaller tax cut, with more of the national debt being paid down.
Incorrect. Some people may want that in a "best of all possible worlds" sort of way, but in the real world, in the likely world, all surplus money will be spent on new government programs, as Daschle and Company have explicitly proposed.
In the last 50 years, government spending was only restrained for one brief period -- from 1991-1996. This was due to the growing deficit, and increasing public concern about it.
Without the deficit to restrain spending, government growth has exploded anew.
20333. Fielding - 5/25/2001 12:50:07 PM
Ace:
"PS: Moderates also support restrictions on abortion, from the ban on partial birth abortion to parental-notification.
It is, indeed, a "moderate" position to support abortion rights, in that 55%+ of the country supports such right. To be against certain restrictions, however, casts you as a liberal -- moderates favor such restrictions."
I didn't say that I followed every moderate position in lockstep. Only an idiot that can't think for him/herself follows every position in a movement in lockstep. (You, for example). I'm motre liberal than the median on abortion, I'm more conservative than the median on free trade. I'm more liberal than the median on gay rights, I'm more conservative than the median on rent control.
20334. Wombat - 5/25/2001 12:55:23 PM
These days, Nixon would be considered a "liberal"
Liberal=Anyone who Ace disagrees with.
20335. Fielding - 5/25/2001 12:57:30 PM
Ace:
"Laugh. Riiiiiiiight. Let us not take the word of hundreds of conservative think-tankers, who want a BIGGER tax cut; let us take Fielding's word for what "true conservatives" want."
Those "conservative" think tanks are not taking a true "conservative" position. They are taking an ideological position.
True conservatism calls for fiscal restraint. A deficit inflicting tax-cut is not a conservative value, it is a right wing value.
This is similar to Reagan, a conservative, whose policies caused huge deficits. To call Reagan a fiscal conservative makes a mockery of the word conservative.
Another example is the Supreme Court, where so called conservative justices will occassionally take an activist position to reach the result they want. Those positions are not conservative in the judicial sense, but rather in the political sense.
But these words are really just convenient labels for you.
20336. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 12:59:31 PM
I didn't say that I followed every moderate position in lockstep.
Youi don't follow any important moderate position in lockstep. On all seriously contested issues -- abortion, military, government spending/social programs, tax cuts, gay rights, death penalty -- you are a fairly left liberal, usually holding a position that only 25%-40% of the country holds. And this you define as "moderate."
I'm motre liberal than the median on abortion, I'm more conservative than the median on free trade.
Laugh. Again, idiots like you -- so determined to call yourself a "moderate" -- claim that free trade is a "conservative" issue, when in fact the parties equally agree on the issue and have dissenting factions of approximately the same size and power. Free trade does not split the country according to ideology, it splits the country according of class (professional vs. factory worker/farmer) and geography (post-industrial city/suburbs vs. rural and industrial cities).
"I'm more liberal than the median on gay rights, I'm more conservative than the median on rent control. "
Wow.
Fielding has TWO minor issues on which he makes his "moderate" stand -- Free Trade (supported by most liberals, as well as most conservatives, and hence neither a conservative/liberal issue) and -- get this -- the pressing national problem of rent control.
Abortion, gay rights, death penalty, social spending, welfare reform, the military, SDI, tax cuts, government spending -- on all these issues he's far to the left.
But he's "conservative" on Free trade and rent control, or at least slightly conservative, and that makes him a "moderate."
Well, douchebag, I'm pro-choice as a matter of policy. I'm conservative on almost everything else, but using your idiotic calculus, that makes me a "moderate" too.
20337. Fielding - 5/25/2001 1:01:39 PM
Ace:
What is my position on the death penalty?
You just pulled a CalGal, you fool.
20338. Fielding - 5/25/2001 1:02:12 PM
Ace:
What is my position on welfare reform?
20339. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 1:04:28 PM
You tell me.
I have a feeling your position on the death penalty will soon be shown to be "pulling a CalGal."
You are against it, but you claim you are against it for non-liberal reasons ("How can we ever be SURE?*") and therefore your allegedly non-liberal reasons for opposing it make it into a non-liberal position.
Uh-huh. Geeze, no liberals ever ponder the "How can we be SURE?" question, Fielding.
20340. Fielding - 5/25/2001 1:07:16 PM
Ace:
I see the problem here. You see that I am pro choice and pro gay rights, so you naturally assume that I am a liberal and ascribe to me every other position that you view as liberal. This says a lot more about you than it does about me.
20341. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 1:09:53 PM
Fielding,
60% of the country approves of GWB as a person and also in his job performance.
You don't.
That puts you in the minority right there.
On just about every significant issue, you're liberal, and within the minority.
One can be in the liberal minority on a few issues and be a moderate; but one can hardly claim to be a moderate when one is in the liberal minority on almost all significant issues.
Free trade isn't a significant issue, because the near-entirety of the political class supports it. You wouldn't claim that my oppostion to Jim Crow segregation makes me a moderate, would you? Of course not; who DOESN'T oppose enforced racial segregation? And yet you think it shows some sort of maverick (and yet moderate) political thinking to support free trade, which every fucking politician from Dianne Feinstein to Barbara Boxer to Phil Gramm supports.
We have a name for people who don't support free trade. Or rather, liberals have a name: They call such people "nativist isolationists crazies" (if Republican) and "misguided union voters" (if Democrats).
20342. Fielding - 5/25/2001 1:13:12 PM
Ace:
I'm not opposed to the death penalty, provided that it is enforced fairly. I am opposed to the death penalty against children and the mentally retarded. I believe that there should be more safeguards against executing the innocent, and I would like to see more uniformity in the sentencing process. I also think the electric chair and the gas chamber are barbaric. I have no problem with the state putting criminals to death.
In other words, my position on the death penalty is typical of most Americans.
20343. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 1:14:22 PM
In other words, you're against it.
20344. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 1:17:05 PM
"I have no problem with putting people to death, so long as no blacks or Hispanics are put to death (this is racist), and so long as no one with less than a 90 IQ is put to death, and so long as we can guarantee that no mistake will ever be made, and so long as the death penatly is imposed in a "uniform" manner (and yet we don't want to put too many people to death, which sort of militates against uniformity of punishment!), and so long as we kill people in non-barbaric ways.
"With those minor caveats, I have no problem with the death penalty. That is, so long as it is only enforced on Planet Xenon, where all my liberal concerns can be fully addresed."
20345. Fielding - 5/25/2001 1:19:54 PM
Ace:
"Abortion, gay rights, death penalty, social spending, welfare reform, the military, SDI, tax cuts, government spending -- on all these issues he's far to the left."
You listed nine positions. I am indeed a liberal with regard to four of them. On the others I range from moderate to conservative.
I will grant that I am most passionate about the two which I am most liberal on, abortion, and gay rights.
Also, your choice of positions for this test is pretty silly. The death penalty is about as minor a political issue as I can think of.
In any case, you are dead wrong, and look silly as well.
20346. Fielding - 5/25/2001 1:22:07 PM
"In other words, you're against it."
If that's true, than most Americans are against it. Most Americans want to see the Death Penalty enforced in a fair manner with some safeguards to prevent the execution of people who are innocent. Even you want that.
20347. CalGal - 5/25/2001 1:23:04 PM
Actually, I am not against the death penalty for the "How Can We Be Sure?" reason--which is, in fact, a "liberal" reason.
But then, so is my real reason for opposing it.
Ace's list of "seriously contested" issues is silly:
abortion, military, government spending/social programs, tax cuts, gay rights, death penalty
Government spending/social programs and tax cuts are all of the same, actually. So that's one category. Defense is two.
Gay rights, death penalty, and abortion are all incredibly minor political issues and have very little to do with ideology. As with gun control, they are also issues that could easily switch sides if it ever became politically expedient.
Political ideology issues are labor, social spending, trade, and defense. Ace largely ignores thoses because, except for social spending, it ruins his case for turning everyone into a liberal. That's because, as Cellar points out, the "liberal" agenda in these areas is a non-issue--off the table completely.
20348. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 1:26:11 PM
"You listed nine positions. I am indeed a liberal with regard to four of them. On the others I range from moderate to conservative. "
Hah, hah. Name these positions on which you believe you are "moderate to conservative."
here's the list:
Military Spending (weapons, NOT salaries; just about everyone thinks our fighting men should be paid more, if only due to the fact that we can't recruit enough at current pay levels):
Military Spending (SDI):
Welfare Reform:
Affirmative Action:
Abortion:
Gay Rights (generally):
Gay Marriage:
Tax cuts:
Social Spending:
Death Penalty:
Federal Role in Education Spending:
Vouchers:
Church/State (nondenominational prayers at graduations or football games; noncoercive praying at work or school):
20349. CalGal - 5/25/2001 1:31:18 PM
Note how Ace asks the questions.
Tax Cuts: for who?
Do you support a tax cut for the top bracket only?
Do you support expanding the people who don't pay taxes at all?
Do you support a payroll tax cut for lower income workers?
Do you support removing the ceiling on payroll tax?
Do you support reinstating the cap on the Medicare tax?
Do you support the AMT?
Do you support increasing the estate tax protection from 4 million to a higher number?
But no. Ace just says, "Tax cut".
The church/state is another minor non-issue that has nothing to do with ideology.
20350. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 1:32:03 PM
"Ace largely ignores thoses because, except for social spending, it ruins his case for turning everyone into a liberal. That's because, as Cellar points out, the "liberal" agenda in these areas is a non-issue--off the table completely."
Anything that's "off the table completely," such as a Communist form of government, is outside the mainstream and not a relevant consideration.
You're an idiot. If I were as determined to call myself a "moderate" as you are, I could claim that REAL conservative solutions are all "off the table." Eliminating the Education Department, for example, is "off the table." So is executing every murderer (except those who can prove they are redeemable). So is eliminating the IRS, as several "True Conservatives" propose.
Since these "real conservative" solutions are "off the table," what I am left with is moderate pablum. Since I only support such moderate pablum (given that the "real conservative solutions" are presently unpopular and hardly worth fighting for), I must be a moderate.
Cal is making the ingenious claim that she must be a "moderate," because the "real liberal soultions" (socialism, etc.) aren't seriously considered.
In other words, she's a "moderate" as compared to a Communist, socialist, or anarchist.
What. A fucking. Moron.
20351. CalGal - 5/25/2001 1:35:02 PM
Social Spending:
Do you support giving social security benefits to stay at home moms?
Do you support giving a tax credit to stay at home moms?
Do you support increasing the day care tax credit?
Do you support block grants for cities?
Do you support ending all welfare payments?
Do you support school vouchers? (which is, after all, social spending--not its own separate issue).
Do you support increased business investment?
20352. JudithAtHome - 5/25/2001 1:38:03 PM
60% of the country approves of GWB as a person and also in his job performance.
Probably not today....
And that just proves you can fool 60% of the people most of the time.
20353. CalGal - 5/25/2001 1:39:57 PM
Anything that's "off the table completely," such as a Communist form of government, is outside the mainstream and not a relevant consideration.
Communist? Hardly. There are people in this country who want the minimum wage to be $15/hour at least. There are people who think that CEO salaries should be severely limited to a certain number of times the lowest paid person in the company. There are people who want socialized medicine. There are people who think that employers should provide a year paid leave for having children, as well as five or six weeks of vacation a year. There are people who think all daycare should be free.
Just for starters. And all paid for by a progressive tax rate that goes up to 60 or 70% at the highest.
None of that is "Communist". It's barely even Socialist.
20354. CalGal - 5/25/2001 1:42:10 PM
"Liberal" simply can't be used for a position that most of the country agrees with. But then, that assumes that Ace actually came up with truly ideological issues, rather than penny ante bullshit that barely matters to the underlying politics.
20355. CalGal - 5/25/2001 1:44:24 PM
60% of the country approves of GWB as a person and also in his job performance.
60% of the country does not approve of GWB in terms of his association with big business, his position on abortion, and his position on the environment.
That puts you in the minority, right there. Not that it matters, since these are stupid and non-political issues.
BTW, just fifty years ago, increased defense spending was a Democrat agenda item. Republicans were against the military, being isolationists.
20356. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 1:46:59 PM
Cal,
You're a fucking moron. "Liberal" and "conservative" are relative terms. What is liberal and what is conservative depends on how far you deviate from the real political center.
You are claiming, stupidly, that it matters not that, say, only 30% of the nation supports a certain position; you claim that the 30% minority can still be "moderate" if we would only call "liberal" a position an even smaller minority (around 5-10%) holds.
I can do this "on my side," too, Dipshit. If you want to claim that only Chiapas-style socialists are "liberals," then I can claim (with equal justification) that only people who want to eliminate the IRS completely and/or implement a nonprogressive "flat tax" are REAL conservatives. Ergo, I'm a moderate like you.
But such stupidity would define 80-90% of the country as "moderate," while reserving the terms "liberal" and "conservative" only for the extreme, extreme ends of the bell-curve.
Again, if that's the way you wish to define it -- if your badge of "moderate" is so important you seek to ignore the way words are conventionally defined, and use the word to describe the middle 80-90% of the country, fine.
I don't think you're getting this. You are playing a retarded semantic game where you deem only the very leftmost 10% of the country as "liberal," making you a "moderate." There is nothing in principle that keeps me from similarly defining the ONLY the 10% most rightward of the public as "conservative," making me (and Concerned, and JJ, and Dusty, and FU) moderates as well.
It's an idiotic definition, but I expect nothing else from you.
20357. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 1:52:58 PM
"BTW, just fifty years ago, increased defense spending was a Democrat agenda item. Republicans were against the military, being isolationists."
Yes*, and just thirty years ago Democrats were against the Civil Rights Act. Four hundred years ago Oliver Cromwell supported a semi-fascist theocratic state. And two thosuand years ago, the Populares of Rome supported the confiscation of the estates of political rivals, while the Optimates contested this. And five hundred years before that, Athens was very, very pissed off at Sparta.
Sometime before this God and Satan had a political dispute as well.
*Not really "yes," by the way. CalGal is forever ignorant. She likes pretending to be well-read and informed so she can play with the boys.
20358. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 1:58:43 PM
Continuing:
Meanwhile, ten thousand years ago, mongooses and cobras first realized they had intractable differences which could never be papered-over through political compromise.
Twenty thousand years ago, Homo Sapiens sapens decided they would not give political rights to homo sapiens neanderthals; they also decided they would bash their brains in with clubs.
Sixty million years ago, small mammals had a political dispute with dinosaurs; it seems small mammals felt htey had the "right" to eat the eggs of dinosaurs, and dinosaurs were not able to stop this "mammalian genocide" through legislation. At approximately the same time, a large comet had a dispute with the Yucatan.
20359. CalGal - 5/25/2001 2:31:18 PM
Ergo, I'm a moderate like you.
Pretty much. You aren't conservative, Ace, and while your squawkings aren't moderate your politics are certainly barely right of center, if that.
There is nothing in principle that keeps me from similarly defining the ONLY the 10% most rightward of the public as "conservative," making me (and Concerned, and JJ, and Dusty, and FU) moderates as well.
You, JJ, and FU are moderates--slightly right of center. Concerned isn't, and Dusty is a libertarian. You and he might agree on positions, but he wants an end to most government whereas you do not. Dusty isn't moderate.
Again, if that's the way you wish to define it -- if your badge of "moderate" is so important you seek to ignore the way words are conventionally defined, and use the word to describe the middle 80-90% of the country, fine.
Closer to 50-60%, but yes. That is what I'm saying, and have been all along. I believe that Jay has made a similar point as well.
20360. CalGal - 5/25/2001 2:33:19 PM
"Liberal" and "conservative" are relative terms. What is liberal and what is conservative depends on how far you deviate from the real political center.
This is exactly backwards, btw. Liberal and conservate are reasonably absolute. The "real" political center is what is relative.
20361. JudithAtHome - 5/25/2001 2:33:51 PM
Ace:
I loved your history lesson...very humorous!
20362. Indiana Jones - 5/25/2001 2:41:42 PM
Lonely Dissenter
Clinton (D-N.Y.), accusing Republicans of "raw political partisanship" in bringing the Olson nomination up so quickly, said she would vote against Olson because she didn't "believe he meets the standards that we should expect for someone nominated to be solicitor general." Clinton was the target of a scathing book, "Hell to Pay," written by Olson's wife, Barbara.
The Senate also voted in favor of the other two nominees Clinton opposed: Michael Chertoff, former counsel to the Senate Whitewater Committee, to head the criminal division, and Georgetown law professor Viet Dinh, who worked on the Whitewater independent counsel investigation, to head the office of legal policy, on votes of 95 to 1 and 96 to 1, respectively. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved both unanimously.
20363. Cellar Door - 5/25/2001 2:43:51 PM
Michelangelo just e-mailed me his Andrew Sullivan piece which will be on the LGNY website this evening and handed out in the streets of New York, Washington D.C. and the dunes at Fire Island, tomorrow.
I have posted it in its entirety on the Andrew Sullivan thread in "News and the Media" in "Table Talk" in "Salon," and in the "Gossip" forum in "Datalounge."
I also forwarded it to Lloyd Grove at the Washington Post.
20364. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 3:00:46 PM
Cal,
Whether you want to define "moderate" as the middle 40% (as is typically done) or the goofily broad and difference-eliding 50%-60% chunk you favor, you're still a liberal.
20365. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 3:02:07 PM
CD,
I hope "Michaelangelo" never made a responsible statement about safe sex, and yet took a load in his ass or mouth, for then he's a "hypocrite" whose private sexual behavior needs to be breathlessly exposed in idiotic gay hook-up mags.
20366. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 3:03:19 PM
Gee... I've cautioned my gay friend against promiscuous sex, and yet I've never avoided the opportunity to go "bareback" when it presented itself.
I guess I'm a "hypocrite" too, and I need some bedroom investigation.
20367. CalGal - 5/25/2001 3:10:56 PM
Ace,
You spend a whole post saying "If you're not a liberal, then I'm not a conservative!"
When I agree that you're not a conservative, pretty much undercuts your whole case, you respond "Well, you're still a liberal."
Not according to your own conclusion.
Again, if that's the way you wish to define it -- if your badge of "moderate" is so important you seek to ignore the way words are conventionally defined, and use the word to describe the middle 80-90% of the country, fine.
I note you drop your definition of loopy from 80-90 to 50-60. At 50%, I'm only 10% off your own estimate of the "center".
But in any event, "Fine" it is. I'm not a liberal. You're not a conservative. You yourself set up the if then. I've granted the if. You're stuck with the then.
20368. Stumbo - 5/25/2001 3:18:54 PM
Uh, you've got that backwards, CG. You've granted the then; that neither proves nor disproves the if.
20369. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 3:27:53 PM
Cal gets most things wrong. Because, you know, she's an idiot.
20370. CalGal - 5/25/2001 3:31:22 PM
Stumbo,
No, I don't have it backwards. Ace made a very clear "if-then" statement.
20371. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 3:33:51 PM
Cal's supremely idiotic vision consists of "extremists" (15% of the public on either side of the spectrum) and everyone else a "moderate."
You can't call her a liberal. Oh no no no no. She, and I, are both "moderates." We're in the exact same category, as are Stumbo, MsIT, JJ, FU, Dusty, Ronski, Concerned... even Jexster, really, when you think about it. Jexster agrees with CalGal almost 100%, except on gun control; ergo, Jexster, too, must be a "moderate."
Why categorize any further? To do so would only accomplish one goal -- to deny the gay-marriage supporting, partisan Bush-sniping, "Sistahs are doin' it for themselves" singing, supply-and-demand relationship denying, Clinton cocksucking feminist hag from San Fransisco her coveted title of "moderate."
20372. Cellar Door - 5/25/2001 3:35:09 PM
Gee... I've cautioned my gay friend against promiscuous sex, and yet I've never avoided the opportunity to go "bareback" when it presented itself.
What kind of music would you like played at your funeral? The Faure Requiem is Da Bomb!
20373. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 3:36:36 PM
"Ace made a very clear "if-then" statement. "
Ace did not. Ace said he could play the same game, if he so chose, based on the same loosey-goosey "rules" you'd established.
Ace never said that his own political identification (conservative) was based on yours in any way. Whether I'm a moderate or conservative, you're still a liberal. I have more claim to the title "moderate," but I don't take it, because it would be dishonest. And just incorrect.
Further, idiot that you are, you don't realize that an if-then statement cannot be reversed. If the window is broken then I must have thrown the baseball does not imply that if I throw the baseball the window must break.
20374. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 3:40:21 PM
"You spend a whole post saying "If you're not a liberal, then I'm not a conservative!"
This isn't what I said at all; this is your own shoot-from-the-retarded-hag reinterpretation.
What I said was I could, if I wanted, play the ludicrous word-games you do to define myself, or ANYONE here, as a "moderate." Is Concerned a moderate? He sure is, given that the "real conservative solutions" such as radically cutting the welfare state, eliminating the IRS, instituting a flat tax or no tax at all, etc., are "off the table" and thus he can only choose from "moderate" positions which are left on the table.
20375. CalGal - 5/25/2001 3:43:01 PM
Cal's supremely idiotic vision consists of "extremists" (15% of the public on either side of the spectrum) and everyone else a "moderate."
Close enough. The majority of the public is generally pretty moderate in their views. It doesn't mean that you can't be moderately on the right or moderately on the left.
As I've mentioned before, you think that Democrat and liberal is synonomous--likewise, Republican and conservative. But they aren't. Liberal and conservatives are further out on the end of the spectrum--and they are assessed in a variety of different arenas: social, economic, international, etc.
to deny the gay-marriage supporting, partisan Bush-sniping, "Sistahs are doin' it for themselves" singing, supply-and-demand relationship denying, Clinton cocksucking feminist hag from San Fransisco
I'm not from San Francisco. And as has been mentioned before now, your notion of what defines "liberal" is a tad self-centered.
And you're a moderate too, remember? Most of us here are moderates, frankly. Some are also partisan hacks. But devout partisanship does not mean one is a political extremist.
20376. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 3:45:30 PM
"As I've mentioned before, you think that Democrat and liberal is synonomous--likewise, Republican and conservative"
No. Christ, you're a stupid used-up hag.
I think that LIBERALS are liberal. I do not define "Democrat" as liberal; there are Democratic moderates (about half the party registration), but you're not one of them.
I think that that most very partisan Democratic hacks are liberals because, go figure, they are.
You can keep bleating this over and over in your shrill whore way, but it won't make it any more true.
20377. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 3:46:26 PM
Thou should have gotten wise
before thou got old.
--The Fool to King Lear
20378. CalGal - 5/25/2001 3:50:16 PM
Ace did not.
Yes, Ace did.
What I said was I could, if I wanted, play the ludicrous word-games you do to define myself, or ANYONE here, as a "moderate."
Yes, that's true. And as I've said numerous times, most people here are moderates. Not Concerned--well, maybe Concerned. It's so hard to read his rantings I always forget what he actually believes. Libertarians aren't really moderates in that they want the government to pretty much go away. But even then the ones who are here are basically mild in the policies they support until The Great Day arrives.
He sure is, given that the "real conservative solutions" such as radically cutting the welfare state, eliminating the IRS, instituting a flat tax or no tax at all, etc., are "off the table" and thus he can only choose from "moderate" positions which are left on the table.
You can't eliminate the IRS and institute a tax, can you? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something.
In any event, this is dishonest. If someone honestly supports those positions then they are a conservative. Just as someone who thinks the minimum wage should be $12 or more an hour, supports a 60% tax for income over $200K, and supports single payer health care is a liberal.
20379. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 3:50:54 PM
"As I've mentioned before, you think that Democrat and liberal is synonomous--likewise, Republican and conservative"
How can it be, then, that I call Jeffords a "liberal," and I call Breaux, Pataki, and Snowe "moderates"?
Geeze... I guess I am one confused individual. I seem to think (according to Hag) that Republican=conservative, and yet I call Jeffords a liberal. I think Democrat=liberal, and yet I call Breaux a moderate.
20380. CalGal - 5/25/2001 3:52:50 PM
Ace,
But I'm not a Democrat. I'm a Republican. (snerk)
I'm not a liberal. I don't much care as to whether I'm a moderate or not, and the real issue isn't what I am, or what Fielding is, or what you are, even, as it is your (and Francis') skewed and ludicrous version of what defines a liberal. You choose a few idiotic and utterly inconsequential social arguments and convert them into an entire agenda--while completely ignoring the real underpinnings of conservative and liberal beliefs.
20381. CalGal - 5/25/2001 3:53:25 PM
I guess I am one confused individual
Hey. We can agree on something, anyway.
20382. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 3:54:45 PM
"You can't eliminate the IRS and institute a tax, can you? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. "
"True Conservatives" support eliminating the IRS and funding a much-smaller government only through tarriffs and duties.
Although other "True Conservatives" support funding a much-smaller government not via income tax, but by a consumption tax (a national sales tax). Since this is not an income tax, there would be no need for an IRS as currently configured.
Since Concerned doesn't support that, he is a moderate.
Were you missing something? Indeed you were. You're such a "moderate" you are completely oblivious to suggestions from the political right... but you sure do know a lot about young girls losing their "public voice" in middle school.
20383. CalGal - 5/25/2001 3:58:17 PM
"True Conservatives" support eliminating the IRS and funding a much-smaller government only through tarriffs and duties.
Yes, but it was the "flat tax" bit I was questioning. And yes, Concerned might be a moderate. One can still be a wacko about people and have relatively moderate beliefs.
but you sure do know a lot about young girls losing their "public voice" in middle school.
Wrong again, dumbfuck. I don't think you've been correct about more than one of my opinions about the liberal mantra. Although again, this bullshit about girls isn't really liberal, it's just silly social posturing.
20384. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 4:01:35 PM
Hag,
I don't think you've been correct about more than one of my opinions about the liberal mantra
I'm correct that you support 85% of it.
As for the trivial details of your ever-changing "beliefs" (and said beliefs seem to change 180 degrees based upon who's around for you to annoy, or how badly you're getting your ass kicked, and thus how quickly you need to backpedal, in any particular argument), I don't know, I don't want to know.
There are interesting thinkers here, whose opinions I seek and take notice of. You are not one of them, and never have been.
20385. LadyChaos - 5/25/2001 4:02:20 PM
"True Conservatives" support eliminating the IRS and funding a much-smaller government only through tarriffs and duties.
This, plus "end-the-drug-war" and "keep the government out of our bedrooms," and you have the libertarians, which is what I identify as. "True conservatives," unfortunately, don't believe in smaller government when it comes to judging people's private lives.
20386. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/25/2001 4:02:31 PM
U.S. President George W. Bush is hugged by Bobby Rashad Jones, who graduated last in his class, at commencement exercises at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, May 25, 2001. "We must build forces that draw upon the revolutionary advances in the technology of war that will allow us to keep the peace by redefining war on our terms," Bush told the 902-member graduating class and their families seated under an overcast sky at the Navy Marine Corps Memorial Stadium. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque 
20387. CalGal - 5/25/2001 4:06:06 PM
I'm correct that you support 85% of it.
No, you're not. Your definition of "liberalism" is absurd. I adamantly oppose almost every aspect of "liberalism". I only support about half of the social issues that have nothing to do with liberal or conservative but are currently on the Dem/liberal side. It is those irrelevant social issues that you define as the entire agenda. Idiotic and ignorant, really.
As for my "changing" beliefs, you are simply wrong. You have regularly attributed opinions to me that I have simply never stated or come anywhere close to supporting. But you figure it's safe enough to make those assumptions because, after all, I'm a "liberal". Riiiight.
20388. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 4:07:27 PM
Hag,
I just want to keep writing "Hag," and keep you from getting in the all-important Last Word.
Hag.
20389. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 4:12:19 PM
as it is your (and Francis') skewed and ludicrous version of what defines a liberal. You choose a few idiotic and utterly inconsequential social arguments and convert them into an entire agenda
Gee whiz... FU and I use the conventional, argued-by-no-one-except-you definition of "liberal." You don't accept this definition, of course, because it would define you as a liberal.
So you claim liberalism means "something else." Not the issues that everyone associates with lifestyle liberalism, but with... well, who knows, really? Maybe liberalism means having a firm opinion on the Manned Mars Mission. Since you don't have a firm opinion, you're not a liberal.
Meanwhile, back on earth, we'll use FU's and my "skewed definition." Not that we came up with it; it's been the working definition for, oh, twenty or twenty five years now.
20390. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 4:18:35 PM
Jeffords the "moderate":
Jeffords Defection Theme #2: Label him a "moderate," "independent," or a "maverick," but never what he really is, a liberal. Jeffords’ record makes him 44 points less conservative and 25 points more liberal than a true moderate like Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, according to 2000 ratings from the American Conservative Union (ACU) and Americans for Democratic Action (ADA).
His 2000 rating from the ACU: a mere 36 percent. Compare that to other northeastern Republican "moderates." Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter: 62 percent; Maine’s Olympia Snowe: 80 percent; and Maine’s Susan Collins: 76 percent. For more on ACU vote ratings, go to: http://www.conservative.org/ratings2000.htm
From the left, Jeffords voted the way the ADA liked a majority of the time in 2000, earning a 55 percent "liberal quotient." Specter had a 40 percent rating from the ADA, Snowe a 30 percent approval level and Collins voted liberal 25 percent of the time. For more on ADA ratings, go to: http://adaction.org/voting.html
Soooooo... the American Conservative Union rates him a liberal (only a 36% conservative rating, well below many Democrats, and well below true "moderate" Republicans.
The left-leaning, liberal Americans for Democratic Action rated him a "liberal" as well, a full fifteen percentage points more liberal than Arlen Specter, who is at the outer edge of moderatehood (verging on liberal).
And Cal and Fielding cry:
But he's a moderate. Just like WE are.
20391. LadyChaos - 5/25/2001 4:26:20 PM
I believe (but have no data to back it up) that many who tend to vote liberal do so in opposition to the Religious Right. If the Republicans managed to ditch the religious mullahs, and focus on the core issues of eliminating the income tax, allowing free markets to prosper, and maximizing personal freedom at the expense of interference from the federal government, they might have a better chance at avoiding episodes like this one, where they end up shooting themselves in the foot over "principle."
20392. vonKreedon - 5/25/2001 4:27:06 PM
Hey! Can I get in on this?
I'm not a liberal, I'm a progressive, or possibly a radical. At least I used to be a radical. I'm definitely NOT a liberal, my parents are liberals for God's sake.
Now, most of my positions do in fact match the liberal political positions, but this is only because there is little place for radical or even progressive positions in the current political discussion. But I am NOT a Liberal.
20393. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 4:27:39 PM
John Breaux (an ACTUAL moderate) garnered a 47% lifetime rating from the ACU.
Now, that is moderate. 47%. Just less than half the time, Breaux voted with the conservative side. Just more than half the time, he voted with the liberals side.
Moderate.
And Jeffords?
Jeffords' lifetime conservative rating is 27%.
Twenty-seven percent.
There are quite a few moderate Democrats with conservative ratings well above 27%.
20394. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 4:31:55 PM
vK,
You are left of center and, by shorthand, a liberal. I understand your disagreements with the liberal establishment; and if you want to claim you're further left than liberal, that's fine with me. You may be right, but in political shorthand you're a liberal.
20395. vonKreedon - 5/25/2001 4:35:04 PM
I am not fucking liberal! My fucking parents are liberal. Slick fucking Clinton is liberal. Richard (Dick) Gephardt is liberal. I am Anti-Christ-a; I am Anarchist-a; Wanna Destroy!
But I am NOT LIBERAL. Use your shorthand on somebody else.
20396. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 4:37:17 PM
You are a geeky GURPS-master. And a liberal. And still seeking to "rebel" against your parents.
Go write up a GURPS adventure where you can rebel against the system.
20397. vonKreedon - 5/25/2001 4:40:28 PM
Great idea, wanna come over next Tuesday and play?
20398. Stumbo - 5/25/2001 4:42:48 PM
Cellar:
"What kind of music would you like played at your funeral?"
If you're taking requests, here's mine.
(For bonus points, identify the clip.)
20399. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 4:44:42 PM
stumbo,
That page is not available.
20400. vonKreedon - 5/25/2001 4:45:59 PM
But on a serious note, Ace, your use of shorthand is regularly galling. You identify someone as "Liberal" and then simply ascribe what you define as Liberal positions to them with no reference to the actual positions taken by the actual individual. You forget that we are all individuals, even Liberals.
20401. Stumbo - 5/25/2001 4:49:58 PM
Oh, the GeoCities no-external-links thing again... I think it'll work if you hit reload after getting to their error page.
20402. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 4:50:34 PM
You forget that we are all individuals, even Liberals.
I don't "forget" it so much as I ignore it.
No offense, but you're not as much as an "individual" as you think.
The GURPS-thing aside.
20403. Stumbo - 5/25/2001 4:53:20 PM
If "reload" doesn't work, try putting your cursor at the end of the URL (in the "Location:" window or its equivalent), and hitting return.
20404. Fielding - 5/25/2001 4:53:48 PM
Ace:
"And Cal and Fielding cry:
But he's a moderate. Just like WE are."
I never said that Jeffords wasn't a liberal. You've pulled a CalGal again. That's two in one day. Two gives me the right to call you a dick-head. One more and I'm going to call you a hard-up humorless rageaholic.
Dick-head!
20405. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 4:55:10 PM
Stumbo:
I got it to play by cutting and pasting the URL into another window.
The beginning sounds vaguely familiar, like some crap from RUSH I had to listen to a thousand times, but then it completely loses me.
20406. Stumbo - 5/25/2001 4:57:40 PM
Nope, not Rush.
Hint: the name of the file is an acronym for the track's title.
20407. LadyChaos - 5/25/2001 5:08:18 PM
vK,
Anarchists are liberals of the worst sort. I had my fill of the little creeps in Europe. I always used to laugh when a bunch of skinheads showed up to pound the shit out of the anarchists. (Not that I care for skinheads, but still, it was funny.)
20408. vonKreedon - 5/25/2001 5:17:01 PM
LC - Anarchist cannot be called Liberal, Liberals support government intervention to solve societies ills; Anarchists support the destruction of the state and cooperative action to solve societies ills.
20409. LadyChaos - 5/25/2001 5:23:33 PM
Anarchists are anti-capitalist, socialist, and are only capable of demonstrating what they are against, which is, apparently, McDonald's and the IMF.
Anarchists seem to think that they support improved living standards in third-world countries, yet seek to undermine the very free-market institutions that have the best chance of achieving that end.
In other words: ANARCHISTS = LIBERALS!
20410. vonKreedon - 5/25/2001 5:27:52 PM
LC - Anarchists are also not Socialists. Socialists are more like Liberals than like Anarchists, in that both Socialists and Liberals (and for that matter Commies) support the use of the state to promote the greater good. Anarchists, in addition to being anti-capitalist, are anti-state to the core.
There is no ideological reason that Anarchists would be anti-free market in terms of determining what goods are produced, as long as the production is being done by the people who control the means of production;i.e., as long as some non-worker capitalist is not making a profit off the the free market transactions. That being said, most, almost all, of those who purport themselves to be Anarchists are uninformed young people looking for a label to best piss off the establishment.
20411. LadyChaos - 5/25/2001 5:40:15 PM
There is no ideological reason that Anarchists would be anti-free market in terms of determining what goods are produced, as long as the production is being done by the people who control the means of production;i.e., as long as some non-worker capitalist is not making a profit off the the free market transactions.
Gee, sounds like Marx to me. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by asking this question: How would the Anarchists enforce the above-stated paradigm, if by none other than state power?
20412. LadyChaos - 5/25/2001 5:43:00 PM
I mean, what's to prevent capitalist intermediaries from trading in goods -and making a profit - unless the state prevents them from doing so? Of course, one way to do this would be to impose prohibitive taxes on such transactions, but you need a state to do that.
The result would be huge problems in allocative inefficiency, which is essentially what caused the collapse of the Soviet empire.
20413. LadyChaos - 5/25/2001 5:46:03 PM
The Anarchists are just a bunch of fucking moronic hooligans who have no clue as to how to solve the world's problems.
20414. Stumbo - 5/25/2001 5:55:30 PM
"How would the Anarchists enforce the above-stated paradigm, if by none other than state power?"
Spontaneously-arising mobs?
(Answer to #20398: "Sunday Afternoon In the Park," from Fair Warning by Van Halen.)
20415. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:08:15 PM
Nickles to Enforce Bipartisan Power Sharing Agreement Giving Republicans Continued Majority Status
AheadNews.com, by AheadNews.com Original Article
Posted By: letstalx - 5/25/2001 2:50:38 PM Post Reply
AheadNews.com has learned that Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) is considering adhereing to the Power Sharing Agreement, known as Senate Resolution 8. This agreement signed in January when Senate Democrats were crying about the outcome of the Presidential Election. This agreement, worked out largely by Sen. Lott (R-MS), and Sen. Nickles (R-OK) on the Republican side and Sen. Gephardt (D-MO)and Sen. Daschle (D-SD)on the Democrat side, states that to control the Senate a majority of the members is needed. In this case, a majority of a 100 member body is 51. Behing the scenes, Daschle is fuming that Jeffords did not switch to the Democrat Party. According to Congessional staffers, Daschle is preparing to launch a full assault in the media against the Republicans if they press this issue. Daschle was heard saying that it "is the spirit of the agreement that matters." However, Don Nickles said that Senate Resolution 8 is a signed agreement and he said the "GOP intends to enforce" it even if they have to fillibuster. .....Developing AheadNews.com Exclusive
Van Halen? I was going to say Van Halen. I swear to god.
20416. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 6:13:23 PM
20417. LadyChaos - 5/25/2001 6:13:43 PM Spontaneously-arising mobs? 20418. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:14:21 PM 20419. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:14:57 PM The Senate can just vote to overturn SR8, and pass another resolution that disempowers the republicans. 20420. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 6:15:42 PM Ooops. I neglected the filibuster issue. Do you really think that the republicans will filibuster to retain control of a senate in which they no longer have a majority? Would this be wise, politically? 20421. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:16:37 PM 20422. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 6:16:46 PM No matter what, this is great. We got two years of gridlock, disabling both pork peddling parties. 20423. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:17:14 PM 20424. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 6:18:02 PM Ace, you have a habit of not answering tough questions. I said: 20425. CalGal - 5/25/2001 6:18:43 PM Jeffords will vote organizationally with the Dems. I suspect that will count as a majority. 20426. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:19:21 PM 20427. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:19:54 PM 20428. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 6:20:59 PM That such committee ratios shall remain in effect for the remainder of the 107th Congress, except that if at any time during the 107th Congress either party attains a majority of the whole number of Senators, 20429. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:21:04 PM 20430. CalGal - 5/25/2001 6:21:18 PM I didn't say it was a majority, I said I suspect it will count as a majority. 20431. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 6:21:49 PM You're saying a senate resolution is a contract??!!?? 20432. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:22:43 PM 20433. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 6:23:48 PM "either party attains a majority" can only be measured by a vote. It can't be measured by a declaration of affiliation. Such a declaration has no constitutional or legal force. It's merely a convenience. 20434. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:24:14 PM Jay, can you show me where it says "votes"? 20435. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:25:37 PM 20436. CalGal - 5/25/2001 6:26:50 PM The Dem party has attained a majority of the whole number of senators, actually. I originally thought it was only a technicality, but Jay is right. It can only be counted by votes and the Dem party has a majority of all the senators voting for their leaders. 20437. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 6:27:22 PM "either party attains a majority of the whole number of Senators. Jay, can you show me where it says "votes"? " 20438. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:27:49 PM 20439. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:29:14 PM 20440. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 6:30:11 PM "If it could be undone by a vote, then why couldn't the Republicans (when they had fifty votes) vote to undo the power-sharing agreement (with Cheney's tie-breaking vote) and give themselves a greater number of seats on each committee? 20441. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:30:38 PM 20442. CalGal - 5/25/2001 6:31:15 PM No, they don't. A majority means 51. 20443. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:31:16 PM "Losing a member changes the landscape. Is it surprising that the deal changes in that case?" 20444. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:33:38 PM Hag, 20445. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 6:34:21 PM As I said, Ace, you tend not to answer questions. There are three still open. (You didn't really answer the first, and the others are still unanswered. And I am still waiting to hear if you honestly believe that there was no concerted effort by movement conservatives to drive Clinton out of office.) 20446. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:34:57 PM "What's complicated about that? It was a political compromise" 20447. CalGal - 5/25/2001 6:37:48 PM The Majority Party in Congress doesn't necessarily have to elect the Speaker of the House from its ranks -- because the Speaker of the House is determined by votes. 20448. Cellar Door - 5/25/2001 6:38:42 PM Ace has no intention of answering questions. 20449. CalGal - 5/25/2001 6:40:06 PM And apparently Daschle gave on this issue. 20450. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:40:40 PM "And I am still waiting to hear if you honestly believe that there was no concerted effort by movement conservatives to drive Clinton out of office." 20451. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 6:41:39 PM 20452. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 6:41:55 PM [chuckle] 20453. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:42:15 PM It doesn't have anything to do with what I said. Jeffords has said that he will vote organizationally with the Democrats. That gives them a majority 20454. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:43:27 PM 20455. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/25/2001 6:44:56 PM For those of you who'd like to . . . 20456. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 6:49:10 PM "I already answered this, Dickhead. I will answer again: Yes, there was a "concerted effort" to drive him out of office when he was revealed to have committed multiple felonies in office (plus dozens of felonies we know he did, but could never prove, do to contempunacious witnesses and mysteriously disappearing records). " 20457. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:49:53 PM 20458. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 6:49:57 PM I'm chuckling because that post was so lame that it wasn't worth commenting on. 20459. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:50:43 PM 20460. CalGal - 5/25/2001 6:51:34 PM The contract specifies a "Majority of the Senators," not a "majority of the votes of the Senate." 20461. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:51:52 PM 20462. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 6:52:35 PM "First, Jay thinks Republicans should give up the Presidency due to the stupidity of "confused Democratic voters" who didn't understand how to follow an arrow to a hole. " 20463. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 6:54:40 PM "You're a little partisan whining bitch-boy who can't read standard English." 20464. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:54:57 PM 20465. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 6:55:54 PM "What other measure (other than votes) do you propose? " 20466. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:56:46 PM 20467. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 6:57:35 PM What is that measure? That's the question. How do you tell the party of a senator? 20468. CalGal - 5/25/2001 6:57:56 PM Ace, 20469. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 6:59:07 PM 20470. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 7:00:32 PM 20471. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 7:01:42 PM 20472. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 7:02:14 PM Because party has no constitutional existence, as was implicit in your comments upthread about how stupid it was to suggest that senators not be allowed to change parties. 20473. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 7:02:43 PM 20474. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 7:04:44 PM 20475. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 7:05:05 PM Still waiting for your measure. 20476. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 7:05:43 PM 20477. CalGal - 5/25/2001 7:06:16 PM Party is expressly a part of the Senate's rules of organization. 20478. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 7:06:46 PM 20479. vonKreedon - 5/25/2001 7:07:18 PM 20480. CalGal - 5/25/2001 7:08:24 PM And James Trafficant voted for the Republican Speaker of the House, but he remains a Democrat. 20481. CalGal - 5/25/2001 7:09:22 PM I agree, the ratios should stay 50-50, the question then comes up on how to count Jeffords, who still has to be seated on committees. 20482. vonKreedon - 5/25/2001 7:09:46 PM 20483. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 7:11:24 PM If this was for me: 20484. vonKreedon - 5/25/2001 7:11:33 PM 20485. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 7:11:52 PM "Senate party leadership positions are only voted on by party." 20486. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 7:13:19 PM VK, 20487. vonKreedon - 5/25/2001 7:14:35 PM 20488. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 7:14:35 PM 20489. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 7:15:12 PM And I'm gone for at least the night. So save your appellations, Ace. 20490. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 7:15:37 PM 20491. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 7:16:06 PM Jay, 20492. vonKreedon - 5/25/2001 7:16:17 PM 20493. JayAckroyd - 5/25/2001 7:16:55 PM 20494. CalGal - 5/25/2001 7:19:26 PM GEE, CAL-- HOW DO THEY DETERMINE PARTY? 20495. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 7:20:13 PM 20496. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 7:22:26 PM 20497. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 7:26:24 PM 20498. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 7:29:02 PM 20499. CalGal - 5/25/2001 7:33:01 PM And when Jeffords is assigned to Senate committees, he will be assigned there as part of the Democrats' quota-- not as an Independent who has the right to sit on committees of his choosing. 20500. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 7:34:33 PM vK, 20501. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 7:35:27 PM 20502. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 7:37:38 PM 20503. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 7:42:39 PM 20504. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 7:44:13 PM Incidentally, if you'd bothered to read the article, even Daschle concedes that this is correct according to the "letter" of the resolution. 20505. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 7:45:26 PM 20506. vonKreedon - 5/25/2001 7:48:37 PM 20507. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 7:52:32 PM 20508. vonKreedon - 5/25/2001 7:54:38 PM 20509. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 7:54:48 PM 20510. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 7:57:26 PM 20511. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 8:00:42 PM RESOLUTION 20512. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 8:01:20 PM SEC. 2. Provided, That such committee ratios shall remain in effect for the remainder of the 107th Congress, except that if at any time during the 107th Congress either party attains a majority of the whole number of Senators, then each committee ratio shall be adjusted to reflect the ratio of the parties in the Senate, and the provisions of this resolution shall have no further effect, except that the members appointed by the two Leaders, pursuant to this resolution, shall no longer be members of the committees, and the committee chairmanships shall be held by the party which has attained a majority of the whole number of Senators. 20513. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 8:01:29 PM (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, to insure that any cloture motion shall be offered for the purpose of bringing to a close debate, in no case shall it be in order for any cloture motion to be made on an amendable item during its first 12 hours of Senate debate: Provided, That all other provisions of rule XXII remain in status quo. 20514. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 8:04:06 PM vK, 20515. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 8:08:03 PM 20516. vonKreedon - 5/25/2001 8:14:25 PM 20517. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 8:22:48 PM 20518. dusty - 5/25/2001 8:32:06 PM AceofSpades 20519. vonKreedon - 5/25/2001 8:35:48 PM 20520. vonKreedon - 5/25/2001 8:39:40 PM 20521. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 11:00:31 PM 20522. Fielding - 5/25/2001 11:18:54 PM You guys are looking at this all wrong. This is like the 2000 Presidential election. Its not about who's right and who's wrong, its about power. 20523. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 11:21:53 PM 20524. robertjayb - 5/25/2001 11:22:09 PM Jim Hightower rants on dubya's social security commission, his drug czar, and Cheney's Halliburton. 20525. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 11:24:48 PM 20526. Fielding - 5/25/2001 11:28:00 PM Me too. 20527. arkymalarky - 5/25/2001 11:30:12 PM Me three. I think they should dig in their heels and refuse to budge until things begin to operate more in their favor or until Nov 2002, whichever comes first. 20528. vonKreedon - 5/25/2001 11:31:58 PM 20529. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 11:34:11 PM 20530. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 11:34:47 PM 20531. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 11:36:43 PM 20532. vonKreedon - 5/25/2001 11:37:31 PM 20533. vonKreedon - 5/25/2001 11:38:39 PM 20534. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 11:39:16 PM 20535. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 11:40:45 PM 20536. vonKreedon - 5/25/2001 11:41:01 PM 20537. arkymalarky - 5/25/2001 11:41:38 PM He loves to hate. The same reason my husband listens to Paul Harvey and Rush Limbaugh. Ace's such a grumpy old fart about it, though, it just tickles me. 20538. vonKreedon - 5/25/2001 11:42:07 PM 20539. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 11:42:16 PM I do love to hate. It's odd. 20540. vonKreedon - 5/25/2001 11:43:51 PM 20541. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 11:46:41 PM 20542. vonKreedon - 5/25/2001 11:47:40 PM 20543. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 11:49:32 PM 20544. arkymalarky - 5/25/2001 11:51:24 PM You must be quite a bit younger than I am, Ace. I used to spend a lot of time as an indignant, rabid liberal, and I still can be irl on occasion, especially at radio talk show idiots, but now I'm mostly just a quiet sideliner who only engages in arguments I think are worth the effort or that really hold my interest, and who otherwise waits for some Republican pet person or project to get gigged so I can laugh sardonically to myself and in the Mote. 20545. Stumbo - 5/25/2001 11:53:00 PM If the Republicans attempt to keep SR8 in place, the 3 major networks will feature nightly breathless reports on how said party is obstructing the will of the people by refusing to acknowledge the Dems' new "majority." And they (the Republicans) will cave within a week or so, without even forcing Jeffords to incur the embarrassment of dropping the "independent" pose and going all the way. 20546. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 11:53:40 PM 20547. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 11:57:27 PM 20548. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 11:58:56 PM And vK, 20549. AceofSpades - 5/25/2001 11:59:47 PM 20550. Fielding - 5/26/2001 12:58:35 AM "I honestly think this country needs a divorce. 20551. Fielding - 5/26/2001 1:01:24 AM "Once someone actually has to do some WORK, one wants the fruits of his own labor. He doesn't want to share, EXCEPT with someone who does an equal amount of work and is willing to share the same amount." 20552. concerned - 5/26/2001 1:46:34 AM 20553. ycmeehan - 5/26/2001 4:32:25 AM Bush Faces the Power of Subpoena 20554. Cellar Door - 5/26/2001 10:31:42 AM 20555. JudithAtHome - 5/26/2001 12:27:28 PM That was fantastic, Cellar...I tried to post earlier when you put this up but had problems getting through. 20556. PelleNilsson - 5/26/2001 2:38:46 PM Devastating stuff. 20557. ranheim - 5/26/2001 7:26:56 PM I saw a repeat of an interview Rich did on C-Span with Brian ______. Rich looks to be of boomer age. 20558. Cellar Door - 5/26/2001 8:32:24 PM You're welcome. 20559. vonKreedon - 5/26/2001 9:25:32 PM 20560. Cellar Door - 5/26/2001 9:27:07 PM If you think the Rich column was good, you ain't read NOTHIN' yet! Be the first on your block. 20561. Slackjaw - 5/27/2001 12:02:05 AM Another pandering column from Rich with the profound message, "this generation sucks but you don't because you nod approvingly as I savage the abstract." It's the same old lament for the nobler citizens and politicians of yore -- the ones who didn't posture or flail about for solutions during a crisis, who weren't greedy or (everyone's favorite insult) narcissistic -- but instead selflessly got on with the business of identifying the collective good and achieving it. 20562. joezan - 5/27/2001 8:22:21 AM arky: 20563. joezan - 5/27/2001 8:25:06 AM - That's three consecutive Paul Harveys, btw. 20564. jexster - 5/27/2001 9:36:04 AM Don't Look Now Folks....Budget Surplus All Gone 20565. jexster - 5/27/2001 9:42:03 AM I hear the Disney people rewrote the history in some major respects. 20566. jexster - 5/27/2001 9:51:43 AM QUOTE OF THE WEEK: State Attorney General Bill Lockyer has never been known as a loose cannon, so when he told the Wall Street Journal this week that he would love to personally escort Enron Corp. Chairman Kenneth Lay into "an 8-by- 10 cell that he could share with a tattooed dude who says, 'Hi, my name is Spike, honey,' " more than a few eyes popped wide. 20567. jexster - 5/27/2001 9:53:20 AM Aaahh...Chino State Correctional, Ken Lay, bitch to the Aryan Nation. 20568. joezan - 5/27/2001 9:57:06 AM So Jex - whatcha gonna do with your 300 bucks? 20569. jexster - 5/27/2001 10:05:38 AM Some folk round here don't know squat about Senate procedure. The power sharing agreement wasn't worth jack. The GOP ran the show with the discharge exception, staff was never at parity, in all not worth 2 lines of a certain person's hyberbolic hot farts. 20570. JudithAtHome - 5/27/2001 10:23:08 AM What is wrong with plain English? Tom Daschle just used the word(?) "incentivize"? 20571. JudithAtHome - 5/27/2001 10:24:54 AM whatcha gonna do with your 300 bucks? 20572. jexster - 5/27/2001 11:43:16 AM 2) When a state decides to outlaw the production of power, and then attempts to repeal the law of supply and demand, like California, it isn't willing to live with the consequences of its actions. No, it then demands that prices be capped so that other states will be forced to subsidize California's willful stupidity. 20573. jexster - 5/27/2001 11:44:28 AM JoeZ - I'm goin to DisneyLand! 20574. jexster - 5/27/2001 12:01:44 PM "communitarianism" add to list of things Ace about which Ace doesn't know ANYTHING... 20575. jexster - 5/27/2001 12:23:57 PM For anyone that is interested in Communitarianism what it really is, I am holding forth in the Slow Thread. 20576. jexster - 5/27/2001 1:35:31 PM Some endorsers of the Communitarian platform (beside me)... 20577. jexster - 5/27/2001 1:42:22 PM From the Platform 20578. jexster - 5/27/2001 1:45:07 PM As we see it, responsibilities are anchored in community. Reflecting the diverse moral voices of their citizens, responsive communities define what is expected of people; they educate their members to accept these values; and they praise them when they do and frown upon them when they do not. Although the ultimate foundation of morality may be commitments of individual conscience, it is communities that help introduce and sustain these commitments. Hence the urgent need for communities to articulate the responsibilities they expect their members to discharge, especially in times, such as our own, in which the understanding of these responsibilities has weakened and their reach has grown unclear 20579. jexster - 5/27/2001 2:01:49 PM Apologies to Jay for violating my self-imposed 3 posts in a row limit but there's a limit to the limit 20580. RosettaStone - 5/27/2001 2:21:10 PM We're using the money that the IRS took away from us to pay for some of our trip to Ireland. 20581. arkymalarky - 5/27/2001 2:22:28 PM We would use some of ours for food and gas, but there wasn't enough. 20582. RosettaStone - 5/27/2001 2:25:01 PM It's never enough for some people. 20583. arkymalarky - 5/27/2001 2:26:12 PM How true. 20584. RosettaStone - 5/27/2001 2:27:21 PM "It's been real. Thanks, buddy." 20585. robertjayb - 5/27/2001 2:42:50 PM whatcha gonna do with your 300 bucks? 20586. RosettaStone - 5/27/2001 3:26:13 PM Or, possibly, to buy some grass from her next door neighbor. 20587. JudithAtHome - 5/27/2001 4:17:41 PM No Rosetta, I just say no to drugs. Try it sometime...the world is a beautiful place when you let go of the hate. 20588. jexster - 5/28/2001 11:39:20 AM On this Memorial Day, I am going to say something nice about the performance of the Bush Administration. 20589. jexster - 5/28/2001 11:43:35 AM And not quite so surprising as I've said this before, I respect the hell out of Chuck Hagel. 20590. CalGal - 5/28/2001 12:29:10 PM Did anyone see Late Edition yesterday? The discussion between Duberstein, Podesta, and Gergen was very interesting. I love it when a roundtable of politicians doesn't descend into political posturing. 20591. jexster - 5/28/2001 9:50:03 PM "Attorney General John D. Ashcroft has told the National Rifle Association that he 'unequivocally' believes the Constitution 20592. OhioSTOPAS - 5/29/2001 5:36:27 AM News reports discussing Ashcroft's letter to the NRA cite the apparently moderating statement in a footnote that, in Ashcroft's view, gun control is permissible when there's a "compelling state interest". 20593. OhioSTOPAS - 5/29/2001 5:55:15 AM If the Second Amendment were to be considered an individual Constitutional right on a par with First Amendment rights, there would be serious consequences for reasonable gun control. 20594. stostosto - 5/29/2001 6:24:33 AM Why the fuss? Ashcroft simply epitomises Bush's "uniter-not-divider" campaign pledge. 20595. joezan - 5/29/2001 6:27:45 AM 20570. JudithAtHome - 5/27/01 10:23:08 AM 20596. OhioSTOPAS - 5/29/2001 6:37:58 AM What happened to the argument - reportedly raised by Senator Nickles last week, and advocated by AceofSpades on Friday - that the Lott-Daschle power-sharing agreement was still in effect because the 50 Senate Democrats are not a majority? There wasn't a peep about this matter on the Sunday talk shows I watched (even from Nickles himself, who was on Fox News Sunday). Was it concluded that for purposes of the agreement, Senator Jeffords is considered to be a Democrat (perhaps because of his announcement that for organizational purposes he would align with the Democrats)? 20597. Indiana Jones - 5/29/2001 8:07:09 AM In Constitutional law jurisprudence (in particular, equal protection cases), a "compelling state interest" is one that would justify, say, racial discrimination. It is rare that a court finds a "compelling state interest" to exist, so Ashcroft's footnote doesn't bring much comfort. 20598. Cellar Door - 5/29/2001 9:41:24 AM 20599. RosettaStone - 5/29/2001 9:42:22 AM They helped lose it for Gore in 2000, so quess what? With public tax monies, California Gov. "Energy Starved" Davis hires them for $30K a month to spin for him. 20600. Cellar Door - 5/29/2001 10:27:13 AM I've been banned at "Independent Gay Forum"! 20601. CalGal - 5/29/2001 10:35:19 AM Ohio, 20602. Ronski - 5/29/2001 10:39:08 AM Cellar, 20603. Cellar Door - 5/29/2001 10:53:08 AM For bringing up La Sullivan. He's a God over there. A character named Justin Raimondo, who headed (or rather constituted) "Gays For Buchanan" attacked me and several others for wanting to talk about it. When we responded the "Administrator" threatened us with banning -- then saw that threat through. Justin can also be found ranting and raving in "Datalounge" -- where he's not given such kid glove treatment. 20604. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 10:58:55 AM The case for the constitutionality of gun control is extremely weak. 20605. CalGal - 5/29/2001 11:09:32 AM Jay, 20606. Indiana Jones - 5/29/2001 11:14:39 AM I don't support a state's "right" to violate the Constitution. 20607. Wombat - 5/29/2001 11:15:34 AM Jay: 20608. Wombat - 5/29/2001 11:18:49 AM Also, "arms" is left undefined. It has been well-established that the right to keep "arms" such as sawed-off shotguns and working artillery pieces does not exist. 20609. CalGal - 5/29/2001 11:18:51 AM There is a great book about the Second Amendment that discusses why the militia clause was in there. But the debate that resulted in the confusing language was about the militia. There was no question that the amendment was intended to guarantee the right to arms. In fact, Sherman submitted a draft that took away that right and it was immediately rejected. 20610. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 11:24:36 AM Is that contradictory, though? One can say that states' rights are supreme in some matters and not others. 20611. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 11:34:43 AM Also, "arms" is left undefined. It has been well-established that the right to keep "arms" such as sawed-off shotguns and working artillery pieces does not exist. 20612. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 11:35:15 AM 20613. CalGal - 5/29/2001 11:36:24 AM And yes, of course, it's contradictory for the wingnuts to say state's rights on abortion and federal intervention on gun control. 20614. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 11:37:08 AM 20615. Indiana Jones - 5/29/2001 11:37:27 AM Jay: I disagree with your historical analysis, but don't feel like arguing that today. I'll limit my dispute to this: 20616. Stumbo - 5/29/2001 11:37:47 AM CG, #20601: 20617. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 11:40:35 AM "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." 20618. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 11:41:57 AM See, Jay, a law can be "constitutional" and yet not a law you like. 20619. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 11:42:31 AM 20620. Indiana Jones - 5/29/2001 11:43:10 AM Jay: What does the quotation you cite in 20617 mean (legally)? 20621. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 11:44:18 AM The two examples you give are certainly distinct enough to be able to argue differently for each without being self-contradictory. 20622. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 11:46:12 AM 20623. Indiana Jones - 5/29/2001 11:46:54 AM The federal government is preventing state intrusion into protected citizen activity in each case... 20624. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 11:47:00 AM If this protects abortion rights, why as abortion illegal throughout the United States for 100 years during/after the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? 20625. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 11:48:16 AM an the Supreme Court "define" just any old "unenumerated right" it wants? 20626. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 11:48:44 AM 20627. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 11:51:19 AM 20628. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 11:51:35 AM The Constitution actually elevates some issues to Constitutional imporatance (right to bear arms, no internal tarrifs) and does not so elevate others (abortion, gun-free school zones mandated by federal law). 20629. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 11:53:40 AM The Ninth Amendment was cited in Griswold, Ace. 20630. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 11:56:59 AM 20631. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 11:58:15 AM 20632. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 12:00:06 PM 20633. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 12:01:21 PM if democracy is to be preserved, refrain from judicial legislatation and only patrol for ACTUAL, EXPLICIT violations of the COnstitution.** 20634. OhioSTOPAS - 5/29/2001 12:02:18 PM CalGal (Message # 20601), regarding the Senate power-sharing agreement: 20635. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 12:03:30 PM 20636. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 12:05:32 PM Jay, 20637. OhioSTOPAS - 5/29/2001 12:06:53 PM It seems to me that the main thing Lott had in mind by this "have to have a majority of 100 Senators" clause was the possibly impending death of Strom Thurmond. The consequence of the clause is that the Democrats do not become the majority automatically upon the death of Thurmond, despite the resulting 50-49 supremacy. 20638. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 12:07:42 PM In fact, I do recognize that public policy is set primarily by consensus views among citizens at any given time, and the constitution does not trump legislation, especially when there are competing concerns regarding public health, and harmful effects on the community stemming from citizen activity. 20639. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 12:07:56 PM direction=directly 20640. CalGal - 5/29/2001 12:11:01 PM Since the Republicans are acquiescing, I can only guess that something somewhere in Senate rules makes Senator Jeffords in effect a Democrat for majority-minority purposes. 20641. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 12:12:45 PM 20642. Fielding - 5/29/2001 12:14:39 PM "I like gun control laws. I don't think they are constitutional." 20643. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 12:17:03 PM 20644. Fielding - 5/29/2001 12:18:08 PM Ace: 20645. Ronski - 5/29/2001 12:18:50 PM A well-armed public continues to be a good thing, so it will not be amended. 20646. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 12:19:00 PM By the reasoning of 20641, then, the NRA is wrong in trying to overturn laws that have been "resolved in ... political bodies." 20647. Fielding - 5/29/2001 12:20:08 PM I heard a rumor over the weekend that McCain was thinking of switching parties. Presumably, in the back of his mind, to run for President as a Democrat. 20648. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 12:20:25 PM 20649. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 12:23:44 PM 20650. OhioSTOPAS - 5/29/2001 12:25:26 PM Ace, (Message # 20641): Legislatures are "the best, most efficient place for the resolution of political questions." 20651. Fielding - 5/29/2001 12:28:03 PM "A well-armed public continues to be a good thing, so it will not be amended." 20652. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 12:29:09 PM 20653. OhioSTOPAS - 5/29/2001 12:29:32 PM "A well-armed public continues to be a good thing." 20654. Indiana Jones - 5/29/2001 12:30:13 PM Fielding (20647): One Republican wag responded to Jeffords' defection by saying, "All's not lost. Maybe we can flip McCain." 20655. Indiana Jones - 5/29/2001 12:31:16 PM My personal opinion is that he's somewhere off the deep end one way or the other. 20656. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 12:31:24 PM And the constitution also says that just because it listed out a bunch of particular rights is not be to be construed to mean that it has listed all of them. It does not say anything about questions of "a constitutional level." 20657. CalGal - 5/29/2001 12:31:26 PM Since I said six or fifteen times that I doubted the Republicans had the balls to demand what the resolution guarantees them, I don't see how their lack of balls proves that I'm wrong. 20658. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 12:32:12 PM 20659. Indiana Jones - 5/29/2001 12:33:27 PM Do you think it is a good thing that it is easier to get a gun than a driver's license? 20660. Ronski - 5/29/2001 12:36:23 PM Fielding, 20661. Fielding - 5/29/2001 12:38:41 PM Indy: 20662. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 12:40:59 PM "I suggest you research this obscure provision rather than constantly whining that the Constitution really SHOULD say something about a right to use narcotics, and even if it doesn't, we should pretend that it does, because this was surely an oversight." 20663. Fielding - 5/29/2001 12:41:42 PM Ronski: 20664. Ronski - 5/29/2001 12:43:52 PM There are numerous jurisdictions where you must have a license to own a gun. In some, such as New York City, that has led to the authorities not issuing licenses in the first place, effectively banning legal handguns. 20665. Ronski - 5/29/2001 12:45:12 PM Fielding, 20666. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 12:46:59 PM 20667. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 12:50:25 PM 20668. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 12:52:22 PM 20669. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 12:53:31 PM The 9th Amendment has simply never been interpreted by the COURT (by any court) as defining additional rights. 20670. Wombat - 5/29/2001 12:54:07 PM My understanding of how well-regulated militias "operated" in the states in the 1800s, was that they were armed and equipped by the state government, and the arms and equipment were kept in arsenals, to be issued at the order of the state or local authorities during times of civil disorder or foreign invasion. In the frontier territories, of course, this was not the case, as there was no "state" to oversee the formation of a militia. 20671. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 12:56:53 PM I could be wrong, but I believe it was the opposite--people brought their own guns. There's a book out on this topic that I may have a reference to. Guns at the time were rarely owned by anybody. 20672. jexster - 5/29/2001 12:58:18 PM Jay is correct. Private gun ownership was indeed rare at the time. There simply is NO evidence that the 2d amendment does not mean exactly what it says. 20673. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 12:59:43 PM 20674. jexster - 5/29/2001 1:00:45 PM Bush will sit down with the present governor, who lately has been blistering in his criticism of the president. 20675. Ronski - 5/29/2001 1:03:26 PM The book Jay is referring to has been discredited for faulty methodology. It is true that many people did not own guns in the past. They either thought they were too expensive or that they did not need them (for example, if they lived someplace other than the frontier or a dangerous city). But the Second Amendment means what it says, that people have a right to own guns. 20676. Ronski - 5/29/2001 1:04:28 PM Given Davis' drop in the polls, his lawsuit threats do not surprise me. 20677. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 1:04:57 PM 20678. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 1:09:46 PM Ronski-- 20679. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 1:11:39 PM Jay, 20680. Ronski - 5/29/2001 1:11:47 PM As I recall, yes. I heard a discussion of it on the radio a few months ago. I'll see if I can find a link or two. 20681. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 1:11:54 PM You're not the only idiot in the world who wants his prefered "rights" enacted by unreviewable, unrepealable judicial fiat. If you're lining up to claim the Ninth Amendment protects your favored rights, why not the favored rights (pro-fetus) of the Right to Life counsel 20682. Wombat - 5/29/2001 1:14:18 PM Jay: 20683. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 1:14:39 PM 20684. jexster - 5/29/2001 1:15:28 PM Ronski, the Second Amendment specifically predicates the right to bear arms on the need for a militia.....I agree it means what it says! 20685. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 1:15:38 PM Thanks for making that correction, Ace. I hadn't read the English law paragraph. 20686. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 1:16:37 PM 20687. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 1:17:08 PM jex-- 20688. Ronski - 5/29/2001 1:18:32 PM Lots of historians disagree with you, jexster. The reading of the original debates persuades them that the right to personal defense, as well as the need to fight against tyranny and invasion, is what the amendment encompasses. 20689. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 1:20:37 PM 20690. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 1:22:30 PM Ace-- 20691. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 1:22:46 PM Rather, I should say "all of your arguments." 20692. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 1:24:10 PM 20693. jexster - 5/29/2001 1:25:34 PM Yea well, Ronski, I'll take your breezy self-serving remark about "plenty of historians" for what its worth... 20694. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 1:27:18 PM Precisely why should we say that our constitution -- a document which doesn't even MENTIOn abortion -- protects abortion rights, rather than the fetus? 20695. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 1:30:24 PM Ace, if you're gonna argue this, why not be the tiniest bit realistic? The difficult questions revolve around rights that entail income transfers, like a right to medical care. There is certainly a point where two citizens' rights can come into conflict. 20696. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 1:30:57 PM 20697. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 1:32:41 PM 20698. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 1:34:15 PM 20699. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 1:36:22 PM You just keep insisting, over and over, that gun-rights, which are mentioned, are inferior to (or at best equal to ) abortion rights, which are not mentioned. One would think the situation would be precisely the opposite. 20700. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 1:37:49 PM 20701. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 1:39:32 PM 20702. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 1:39:50 PM The Ninth Amendment speaks of "the people," not of "citizens." 20703. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 1:40:54 PM 20704. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 1:41:30 PM 20705. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 1:42:44 PM Where does it say that abortion is right? You PRESUPPOSE it is a non-enumerated right, still held by the people despite its non-mention. 20706. Cygnus X-1 - 5/29/2001 1:43:40 PM Ace, Re 20692. 20707. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 1:45:21 PM 20708. Indiana Jones - 5/29/2001 1:47:36 PM Toys 20709. Indiana Jones - 5/29/2001 1:48:58 PM Cygnus (20706): Supreme Court Justices are mostly doddery old geezers. 20710. Cygnus X-1 - 5/29/2001 1:49:19 PM "His term is up [in a few years]. Perhaps he should resign and run as a [his new party] and let the voters make up their minds whether they want him back in that capacity.” 20711. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 1:50:59 PM 20712. Fielding - 5/29/2001 1:52:27 PM Ace: 20713. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 1:54:49 PM 20714. CalGal - 5/29/2001 1:57:05 PM 20715. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 1:57:07 PM "And I am still waiting to hear if you honestly believe that there was no concerted effort by movement conservatives to drive Clinton out of office." 20716. Fielding - 5/29/2001 1:58:40 PM Ace: 20717. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 1:58:46 PM 20718. Cygnus X-1 - 5/29/2001 1:58:55 PM Re this abortion debate and the Constitution. Don't forget the 10th amendment. The constitution, unless otherwise specified, applies to the federal government. The Constitution says nothing about abortion or what constitutes life. Therefore, according to the 10th amendment (which many consider to be redundant), it's up to the states to decide as it was prior to Roe v. Wade and as it should be if this truly is a Republic. 20719. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 2:01:18 PM 20720. Cygnus X-1 - 5/29/2001 2:05:21 PM Re, Citizens vs. non-citizens. See the Declaration of Independence and what it says about who has inalienable rights. 20721. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 2:05:43 PM Ace, the shorthand version is funnier. 20722. Fielding - 5/29/2001 2:07:06 PM Ace: 20723. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 2:07:56 PM Therefore, according to the 10th amendment (which many consider to be redundant), it's up to the states to decide as it was prior to Roe v. Wade and as it should be if this truly is a Republic. 20724. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 2:08:49 PM 20725. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 2:12:41 PM 20726. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 2:15:02 PM All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and n subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. 20727. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 2:18:35 PM 20728. JayAckroyd - 5/29/2001 2:19:06 PM "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within 20729. Fielding - 5/29/2001 2:21:03 PM Ace: 20730. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 2:21:12 PM 20731. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 2:26:17 PM Fielding, 20732. Cygnus X-1 - 5/29/2001 2:28:48 PM Jay, no one is denying that a State can't infringe on a citizens privileges. You're very quick to protect a "right to privacy", yet not so quick to protect "life". You say there is no amendment stipulating that a fetus is or isn't a "person", but doesn't prudence dictate that until one is written, we err on the side of life rather than convenience? 20733. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 2:33:29 PM 20734. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 2:38:06 PM 20735. Fielding - 5/29/2001 2:52:37 PM Ace: 20736. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 2:58:43 PM 20737. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 3:01:01 PM 20738. Fielding - 5/29/2001 3:02:11 PM Ace: 20739. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 3:03:40 PM 20740. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 3:04:43 PM 20741. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 3:10:54 PM 20742. AceofSpades - 5/29/2001 3:18:04 PM 20743. Fielding - 5/29/2001 3:27:09 PM Ace: 20744. Fielding - 5/29/2001 3:28:49 PM Ace: 20745. jexster - 5/29/2001 7:47:20 PM " They can't vote (unless in a Democratic precinct)!" 20746. jexster - 5/29/2001 7:48:59 PM "You don't see any principle because you're stupid. " 20747. jexster - 5/29/2001 7:54:50 PM But the day wasn't a total loss for all that 20748. JudithAtHome - 5/29/2001 8:07:54 PM I read the transcript of his speech...so glad to hear Ernie is doing well. 20749. jexster - 5/29/2001 10:13:59 PM I am on a fuckin roll...Message # 20747 has been e-mailed to one of the Enron Corporation's K Street heavy hitters and is now in this gentleman's mail box. 20750. jexster - 5/29/2001 10:22:37 PM 10 million bucks can't buy media coverag THIS good 20751. joezan - 5/29/2001 11:23:18 PM I am on a fuckin roll...Message # 20747 has been e-mailed to one of the Enron Corporation's K Street heavy hitters and is now in this gentleman's mail box. 20752. jexster - 5/29/2001 11:46:06 PM Yea right JoeZ....hehehe....believe what you want its in the Senator's mailbox right now.... 20753. jexster - 5/29/2001 11:47:41 PM next time you run into Francine U. ask him what I am talking about! 20754. jexster - 5/29/2001 11:48:24 PM Hint: The Moron's first choice for Energy Secretary. 20755. CalGal - 5/30/2001 12:08:57 AM Gray Davis did a good job of explaining things on Larry King. Which I have now suffered through twice in two weeks. Larry King's show, not the explanation. 20756. RosettaStone - 5/30/2001 12:12:03 AM A good job in explaining why California hasn't build any power plants in the last 15 years? 20757. CalGal - 5/30/2001 12:17:38 AM No, dumbfuck, a good job in explaining why the problem has nothing to do with how many power plants we have. 20758. RosettaStone - 5/30/2001 6:48:42 AM I see we have another Democrat in denial. 20759. Dusty - 5/30/2001 7:20:27 AM I don't know how the authority to cap electricity prices got transferred out of the Governor's hands and into the President's, but I wish he would give it back. 20760. Dusty - 5/30/2001 7:22:56 AM RosettaStone 20761. MsIvoryTower - 5/30/2001 7:32:04 AM I don't know how the authority to cap electricity prices got transferred out of the Governor's hands and into the President's, but I wish he would give it back. 20762. Dusty - 5/30/2001 7:40:49 AM 20763. MsIvoryTower - 5/30/2001 9:09:23 AM As I understand your post, the locus of this power has nothing to do with that bill, or even with California, it is Constitutional in nature. Do I have that (approximately) right. 20764. MsIvoryTower - 5/30/2001 9:12:19 AM Actually, if there is strong evidence of collusion among energy suppliers to create shortages driving the price up, Congress has a better tool than price caps; that would be taxation, and then penalties under the anti-trust act. 20765. Indiana Jones - 5/30/2001 9:16:31 AM As I understand it, one of the reasons California is in this fix is because they had price caps on what consumers could be charged so utilities were squeezed between wholesale power suppliers (who had no such price caps) and the consumer. 20766. Cellar Door - 5/30/2001 9:25:31 AM 20767. JudithAtHome - 5/30/2001 9:34:48 AM I just finished reading that, Cellar! Page Six...not bad. 20768. Cellar Door - 5/30/2001 9:58:32 AM The story has legs. 20769. CalGal - 5/30/2001 11:12:28 AM It is my understanding that it is a result of deregulation, the control the President has--because once deregulation occurs, the state has no authority. 20770. Ronski - 5/30/2001 11:36:03 AM Price Caps, Supply Manipulation, and Laura Tyson 20771. Indiana Jones - 5/30/2001 11:56:57 AM Me: [O]ne of the reasons California is in this fix is because they had price caps on what consumers could be charged so utilities were squeezed between wholesale power suppliers (who had no such price caps) and the consumer. 20772. Indiana Jones - 5/30/2001 12:01:32 PM Another NY Times piece 20773. CalGal - 5/30/2001 12:03:25 PM The Times does not say that the problems are caused by the difference between wholesale prices and frozen consumer prices. If they did, they would be wrong. 20774. Fielding - 5/30/2001 12:05:47 PM Sometimes I feel so low-down and disgusted 20775. Fielding - 5/30/2001 12:05:59 PM Big-time negotiators, false healers and woman haters, 20776. jexster - 5/30/2001 12:15:57 PM Thrilla in Manila...Laugha in LA 20777. RosettaStone - 5/30/2001 12:20:00 PM I like the name of "gray" Davis. 20778. jexster - 5/30/2001 12:23:36 PM and he kicked some Moron Ass! 20779. RosettaStone - 5/30/2001 12:56:03 PM In California, people pay $600K for a $150K home. You have the money. Blockbusters sees to that. 20780. OhioSTOPAS - 5/30/2001 1:07:34 PM Does Maryland generate all of the electricity its residents use? 20781. RosettaStone - 5/30/2001 1:09:59 PM Yes, nuclear and coal. 20782. JudithAtHome - 5/30/2001 1:11:10 PM And hot air, obviously. 20783. RosettaStone - 5/30/2001 1:28:56 PM When I first started renting videos from Blockbusters three years ago, they were $1.99 each. Now they're $3.99. 20784. OhioSTOPAS - 5/30/2001 1:29:57 PM To the contrary, Rosetta, Maryland (like most densely-populated states, I suspect) imports a significant amount of its electricity. 20785. Cellar Door - 5/30/2001 1:36:24 PM 20786. RosettaStone - 5/30/2001 1:38:07 PM Think nuclear on the Bay. Think coal in the western side of the state. We may get hydro from Penn, or even Canada. 20787. OhioSTOPAS - 5/30/2001 1:42:18 PM This article has info about the state of electricity supplies in various states, and is the source of my statement in 20784. (There is a pdf version also, which has the graphs and maps cited in the text.) 20788. JudithAtHome - 5/30/2001 1:43:37 PM Looks like the little nut doesn't fall far from the big Bush, huh? What an idiot... 20789. OhioSTOPAS - 5/30/2001 1:44:40 PM The Bush-Cheney notion that each state must generate all of its citizens' needs in every area, and may not rely on free and fair trade from other states, went out when the Articles of Confederation were signed. 20790. jexster - 5/30/2001 1:49:14 PM 20791. jexster - 5/30/2001 1:51:30 PM 7 Billion in 1999 20792. jexster - 5/30/2001 1:52:16 PM Except perhaps to note that all that money is going to Bush's key supporters. 20793. Indiana Jones - 5/30/2001 1:55:07 PM Ohio (20789): 20794. Ronski - 5/30/2001 1:58:57 PM I figured corruption would be the left's talking point of the day. I heard it early this morning on liberal WEVD radio in New York. One caller promised that people would be going to jail and claimed that the Bush "regime" was the most "corrupt" one in history, all tied to California's energy problems of course. 20795. OhioSTOPAS - 5/30/2001 2:00:10 PM Indy: I'm referring to the criticism of California for not having in-state power plants built in sufficient number to meet its population's need for electricity. 20796. RosettaStone - 5/30/2001 2:00:40 PM If that blonde bombshell Jenna Bush is a drinker, you know what else she's doing... 20797. Ronski - 5/30/2001 2:02:07 PM Has anyone bothered to ask why "price gouging" is not going on in well-deregulated states like Pennsylvania? 20798. RosettaStone - 5/30/2001 2:06:58 PM Ronski, Those terrible Texas energy providers are only after those states with governors named "gray." 20799. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 2:07:56 PM One way to take that argument is that the PA deregulators did not give the electricity suppliers a mechanism for manipulating the market. Someone once said about the S&L crisis, which was caused by bad deregulation, that if you pour honey over a picnic table you will attract ants. 20800. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 2:08:55 PM "the markets aren't being rigged." is probably clearer. 20801. Ronski - 5/30/2001 2:09:05 PM Rosie, 20802. jexster - 5/30/2001 2:10:11 PM Bush Tax Scam Should Be Called "Throw Mama From the Train Act 2001" - Krugman 20803. ButterfieldSwire - 5/30/2001 2:10:46 PM California is hooked up to the west of Rocky Mountain power grid which is an interstate market. They are free to buy as much power from out of state as they want. 20804. Ronski - 5/30/2001 2:11:18 PM Jay, 20805. jexster - 5/30/2001 2:12:14 PM Ronski... 20806. Ronski - 5/30/2001 2:12:15 PM (...handed them incentives...) 20807. Ronski - 5/30/2001 2:14:31 PM jexster, 20808. OhioSTOPAS - 5/30/2001 2:15:16 PM Ronski (#20797): According to the LA Times, California, unlike other states, made the mistake of selling off its utilities' in-state power plants: 20809. jexster - 5/30/2001 2:16:14 PM When the cost for roughly the same megawatt usage increases 400% year to year; when at the same time, electricity wholesalers take 4 times the megawattage off line year to year; when plant managers testify under oath that this was done to coincide with power shortages; when natural gas prices increase mysteriously by 400% at the California border, and when, despite usage reductions of 10%, electricity prices go up 70% .... 20810. jexster - 5/30/2001 2:20:46 PM But the OPEC oil ministers must be sitting back pleased as punch that the Texas boyz have learned their oligopoly lessons so well for the next time they want to restrict their production to increase prices, why who is Bush to complain? 20811. Francis Urquhart - 5/30/2001 2:22:14 PM Poor, duped California. 20812. OhioSTOPAS - 5/30/2001 2:22:18 PM This article is what I'm quoting from in #20808. 20813. Ronski - 5/30/2001 2:23:10 PM Free markets work best. It would eventually be apparent even to jexster if we would just try it for a change. 20814. Francis Urquhart - 5/30/2001 2:23:47 PM From Ohio's article: 20815. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 2:24:18 PM But whether raising prices equates with price gouging is another matter. 20816. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 2:24:42 PM But whether raising prices equates with price gouging is another matter. 20817. jexster - 5/30/2001 2:25:11 PM Your link is confused and conflated babble to wit the argument is NOT whether ro to what extent the giant ripoff is harming the economy or will harm the economy or is responsible for the slow down or will be resposnible for other slowdowns, the issue is whether the ripoff is taking place and I'd rather talk about anything else myself. 20818. OhioSTOPAS - 5/30/2001 2:25:57 PM California's misjudgment was that free markets would work and that a collusive oligopoly would not fix prices. 20819. OhioSTOPAS - 5/30/2001 2:27:28 PM The two articles I posted have different perspectives on the situation. I don't know which (if either) is right. 20820. Francis Urquhart - 5/30/2001 2:28:18 PM The free market has worked - just not for Californians. 20821. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 2:28:53 PM Read the article you posted, Ohio. Imposing a retail cap is really a bad idea. Nobody has an incentive to conserve. When you combine that with laws that say you must supply electricity no matter what then you haven't got a free market. 20822. Ronski - 5/30/2001 2:29:37 PM California's misjudgment was in not embracing a free market. How can consumer price caps be considered a part of the free market? But then, truly free markets are exactly not in place elsewhere, either. 20823. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 2:29:56 PM I meant the Dallas Fed article. The LA Times excerpt doesn't particularly clash with that piece. 20824. Ronski - 5/30/2001 2:30:58 PM (not exactly, that is) 20825. OhioSTOPAS - 5/30/2001 2:33:46 PM Jay: You say, ". . . the suppliers are tacitly colluding. But the regulators should have made that impossible. They didn't." 20826. OhioSTOPAS - 5/30/2001 2:34:44 PM P.S. Price caps seem to work in Maryland, where there don't seem to be any blackouts despite Maryland's need to import electricity. 20827. Ronski - 5/30/2001 2:35:22 PM Contrary to some veiled assertions, I have never suggested that corporations always act benignly. But in a free market with enforcement of laws against fraud, prices will eventually find a reasonable level. 20828. jexster - 5/30/2001 2:36:18 PM Free your mind and the rest will follow... 20829. jexster - 5/30/2001 2:37:46 PM The free market has worked - just not for Californians. 20830. Ronski - 5/30/2001 2:38:05 PM Well, Bush is a uniter after all. 20831. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 2:39:17 PM How should the regulators have done this? 20832. jexster - 5/30/2001 2:39:46 PM . But in a free market with enforcement of laws against fraud, prices will eventually find a reasonable level. 20833. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 2:43:30 PM jex, you can't use the california case to argue that free markets don't work. 20834. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 2:54:45 PM At a 1000 bucks a kilowatt 20835. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 2:55:19 PM it's at its maximum 20836. jexster - 5/30/2001 3:05:11 PM Budapest, Hungary -- In his first effort to sell President Bush's missile defense plan to allies, Secretary of State Colin Powell failed yesterday to pierce NATO's sharp opposition. He could not even convince NATO members that a threat of a missile attack against their countries actually exists. 20837. Ronski - 5/30/2001 3:06:42 PM Jay, 20838. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 3:12:24 PM 20839. robertjayb - 5/30/2001 3:45:50 PM Seems like Californians expect those Texas energy boys to treat them as well as the home folks. Guess what? They do. 20840. robertjayb - 5/30/2001 4:02:15 PM Girls just wanna have fun...Barbara, too... 20841. OhioSTOPAS - 5/30/2001 4:07:28 PM I wondered about that too. Crime must be way down in Texas if the cops are being called in because a 19-year-old tries to buy a beer. 20842. Fielding - 5/30/2001 4:22:15 PM At what point do the Jenna apologists admit that this girl has a bit of a problem? 20843. Ronski - 5/30/2001 4:27:18 PM Meanwhile, At the Treasury Department 20844. CalGal - 5/30/2001 4:34:03 PM Politically, they thought they had to cap the retail price, but politically, they couldn't cap the wholesale price. 20845. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 4:47:30 PM The only thing the price caps did was keep the financial burden at the utility, rather than pass it onto consumers, who would have been equally unable to pay it. 20846. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 4:51:15 PM 20847. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 4:54:52 PM 20848. OhioSTOPAS - 5/30/2001 4:57:25 PM From AP: 20849. janjon - 5/30/2001 5:15:49 PM ohio - yes, among the other delightful consequences of the Jefford shuffle, is the stuck-like-a-pig indignation of certain of the GOP brethren. 20850. janjon - 5/30/2001 5:16:26 PM 10-1 Trent loses his job as Minority Leader within six months. 20851. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 5:20:00 PM 20852. janjon - 5/30/2001 5:23:11 PM lots of wind fields. expanding as we speak. with many more planned. 20853. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 5:25:29 PM 20854. jexster - 5/30/2001 5:37:05 PM A House and Senate Divided: 20855. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 6:06:31 PM Message # 20851 20856. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 6:07:19 PM "this reminds me" 20857. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 6:12:48 PM Message # 20844 20858. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 6:20:52 PM Message # 20837 20859. jexster - 5/30/2001 6:23:28 PM Leading charities yesterday questioned President Bush's commitment to boosting community organizations, following the White House's agreement to drop from the tax cut bill provisions aimed at spurring charitable giving. 20860. Francis Urquhart - 5/30/2001 6:30:32 PM The tax bill, the hallmark of Bush's campaign (along with the mushy nice-guy stuff which so betrayed Jay), passed with 30% of the Democratic caucus. 20861. JudithAtHome - 5/30/2001 6:34:56 PM At what point do the Jenna apologists admit that this girl has a bit of a problem? 20862. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 6:35:57 PM The tax bill, the hallmark of the Bush's campaign was undermined by Jeffords unwillingness to support it, and was replaced by a bill that had 30% support of the Democratic caucus. In response to this disloyalty, Bush said to Jeffords, "You will never have lunch with an educator in this town again." And Jeffords said, "Maybe. Maybe not." 20863. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 6:37:52 PM 20864. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 6:38:33 PM Aw Judith, c'mon. You're not being fair. She's doing what every college kid does. It's true that the 21 yo drinking laws are stupid, and she's illustrating that, but find me a freshman who is not a complete geek who isn't drinking once in a while. 20865. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 6:39:32 PM 20866. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 6:41:55 PM 20867. JudithAtHome - 5/30/2001 6:42:23 PM Aw, Jay...c'mon. We had to listen for months on end how morally bankrupt Clinton was and how Bush is such a wonderful family man, blah blah blah. I just think this is a little more than college age assertion of independence. There is some reason this kid is pushing her dads buttons and doing it in such a public fashion. 20868. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 6:43:58 PM 20869. Francis Urquhart - 5/30/2001 6:46:26 PM Jenna sounds like fun. 20870. JudithAtHome - 5/30/2001 6:46:27 PM Ace: 20871. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 6:47:00 PM 20863 20872. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 6:47:35 PM 20873. JudithAtHome - 5/30/2001 6:47:54 PM Oh yeah, the owner of Chuys is a nasty, gossipy, bitchy liberal...you are so friggin' obvious. 20874. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 6:50:46 PM Judith, 20875. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 6:53:14 PM Jay, 20876. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 6:57:16 PM 20877. Francis Urquhart - 5/30/2001 6:58:14 PM I know what I said. 20878. Francis Urquhart - 5/30/2001 6:58:57 PM I figured out Jay's game a few weeks back. 20879. Francis Urquhart - 5/30/2001 6:59:23 PM And I'm just the hondo to do it. 20880. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 7:00:12 PM 20881. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 7:00:26 PM "You are allowed to depreciate the intial costs of every other fucking capital investment in the world" 20882. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 7:01:03 PM Bet you can't. 20883. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 7:04:33 PM "First, oil fields are not investments. This is pure economic rent and they cannot depreciate." 20884. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 7:04:41 PM Ace, you don't know the difference between an economic rent and other forms of income. So you can taunt all you want, but there is a reason that the oil depletion allowance shows up as a tax expenditure. And there's a reason they don't call it the oil depreciation allowance. 20885. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 7:05:38 PM "An oil field is not a capital good. " 20886. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 7:06:40 PM 20887. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 7:07:58 PM Ace, you don't pay 6 million dollars for an oil field. You incur exploration expenses. When you acquire capital goods like drilling platforms, you depreciate them according to schedules set by the government. Sometimes those depreciation schedules are overly generous as with airplanes. And sometimes they are overly miserly, as with computers. But that has nothing to do with the oil field you find through exploration. The oil field is not a capital good. You didn't build it. You didn't make it. You found it. And you depreciated the capital goods you used to find it. 20888. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 7:09:06 PM 20889. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 7:10:00 PM 20890. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 7:10:39 PM 20891. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 7:12:54 PM Laugh. Jay's chart simply throws in depletion as a subsidy, then it claims that "expensing exploration costs" (i.e., deducting business costs as ALL OTHER BUSINESSES DO) is a subsidy as well. 20892. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 7:13:50 PM 20893. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 7:13:53 PM You mean if Exxon buys it from a wildcatter? 20894. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 7:14:46 PM Okay Ace, now it's your burden to cite why each of those do not represent subsidies. 20895. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 7:15:42 PM Alternative fuel production in this table refers to subsidies to extraction from low yield petroleum sources, like shale. 20896. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 7:15:56 PM "There is this special case related to mineral and other depletion allowances, but that is not a capital depreciation." 20897. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 7:17:25 PM "Laugh. Jay's chart simply throws in depletion as a subsidy, then it claims that "expensing exploration costs" (i.e., deducting business costs as ALL OTHER BUSINESSES DO) is a subsidy as well. " 20898. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 7:19:35 PM Ace, 20899. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 7:20:44 PM The capital expenditure you make in search of oil is depreciable whether you find any or not. The depletion allowance has nothing to do with spreading expenses across years. It's a subsidy, pure and simple, designed to encourage exploration. 20900. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 7:23:50 PM Jay, 20901. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 7:24:00 PM 20902. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 7:26:23 PM 20903. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 7:26:35 PM 20904. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 7:27:58 PM Ace, the allowance has to do with the value of the field, not the cost of acquiring it. See--depletion means removal while depreciation means decline in value of a capital asset. You don't get a depletion allowance against a collection of dry holes, no matter how much you spent. 20905. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 7:31:19 PM ". You don't get a depletion allowance against a collection of dry holes, no matter how much you spent. " 20906. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 7:32:09 PM 20907. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 7:32:51 PM 20908. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 7:34:11 PM 20909. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 7:50:01 PM 20910. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 7:50:49 PM 20911. AceofSpades - 5/30/2001 7:58:31 PM Jay, 20912. Fielding - 5/30/2001 9:44:17 PM Lovely Judith: 20913. Fielding - 5/30/2001 9:48:26 PM Jay: 20914. OhioSTOPAS - 5/30/2001 10:38:11 PM ". . . find me a freshman who is not a complete geek who isn't drinking once in a while." 20915. MsIvoryTower - 5/30/2001 10:42:37 PM You also have to consider that this is Bush country: if she's being caught red-handed here, then something more is happening. 20916. arkymalarky - 5/30/2001 10:58:36 PM I think considering--isn't it three?--instances in such a short time, I'd have yanked my daughter's butt home by now. 20917. angel-five - 5/30/2001 11:49:43 PM They say alcoholism may be hereditary, y' know. Intelligence definitely is, which may explain why little Jenna Bush keeps on getting caught. 20918. angel-five - 5/30/2001 11:59:01 PM Anyone who gets caught this often... it's safe to say there's some form of problem with them, but very hard to say what that problem is. It could be any number of things ranging from sheer arrogant stupidity to a misplaced faith in personal legal invulnerability. I don't know that I buy this 'cry for help' idea but it's possible. More than likely Jenna Bush is just, well, the sort of sorority-type chick that is very common on campuses across America, a type that millions of college boys go looking for on a Friday night with beer money in hand, and such a type is really way out of their depth having the family loser in a constant spotlight for everyone to look closely at. We could heal all of America's political wounds at once and arrange a marriage between her and Clinton. 20919. angel-five - 5/31/2001 12:02:09 AM I know this. If Dubya Bush was my father, and everyone knew it, my drinking problem would only be mitigated by the lack of a third and fourth hand. It's completely understandable if a rich little Texas conservative girl develops a bad drinking problem in the circumstances lil Jenna finds herself in. Let's not rag her too hard. 20920. angel-five - 5/31/2001 12:06:00 AM Yup. 20921. angel-five - 5/31/2001 12:06:46 AM What, exactly, is she doing with her hands? 20922. Cellar Door - 5/31/2001 1:08:24 AM From MediaWhores.com: 20923. angel-five - 5/31/2001 1:31:20 AM Yes, but what is Jenna Bush doing with her hand? 20924. robertjayb - 5/31/2001 2:17:51 AM She is trying to keep her top up after clumsy dad, the dancing fool, almost disrobed her. 20925. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 8:40:51 AM Jenna Bush story: 20926. AceofSpades - 5/31/2001 8:50:28 AM 20927. msgreer - 5/31/2001 8:53:53 AM I want to know where the Secret Service is while Jenna is out looking for a drink. 20928. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 8:55:05 AM I want to know where the Secret Service is while Jenna is out looking for a drink. 20929. msgreer - 5/31/2001 8:56:57 AM Chelsea is on her way to Oxford. She seems like a down to earth young woman, well grounded. I give her alot of credit. It can't be easy with Bill and Hillary as your parents. This statement coming from a liberal. 20930. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 8:57:13 AM BTW, I think the Jenna Bush story is "please don't throw me in that briar patch," as far as Bush is concerned. 20931. msgreer - 5/31/2001 8:57:44 AM IJ Just curious. No bad intentions meant by that post. 20932. msgreer - 5/31/2001 8:58:45 AM And I too believe the press should let this Jenna story drop. Let her parents handle it. 20933. Cellar Door - 5/31/2001 9:04:26 AM No. 20934. AceofSpades - 5/31/2001 9:14:59 AM 20935. jexster - 5/31/2001 9:54:08 AM Aaaaaahhh promises, promises meets the Throw Mama From the Train Tax Cut 20936. Fielding - 5/31/2001 9:57:53 AM Indy: 20937. AceofSpades - 5/31/2001 10:05:06 AM 20938. JudithAtHome - 5/31/2001 10:08:57 AM Ace, if Gore were President now and his kid was caught snorting coke, do you think you'd respond with "Awww, poor kid...he's just doing what kids do; cut him some slack." 20939. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 10:09:49 AM Everybody is interested in this story. That is, everybody except for politicized conservatives who fear that any criticism of anybody named Bush is a liberal attempt at a coup d'etat. 20940. Francis Urquhart - 5/31/2001 10:10:25 AM Chelsea seems grounded. She may be. She may also been in shock therapy. 20941. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 10:12:55 AM That would be whipped cream swimsuit. 20942. OhioSTOPAS - 5/31/2001 10:17:35 AM On this subject, I see no reason to be particular! 20943. Francis Urquhart - 5/31/2001 10:20:15 AM I'm sure it is shaving cream. 20944. JudithAtHome - 5/31/2001 10:20:17 AM On this subject, I see no reason to be particular! 20945. Fielding - 5/31/2001 10:20:24 AM Indy: 20946. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 10:21:33 AM Fielding: My guess is Ross Perot is behind the story. 20947. JudithAtHome - 5/31/2001 10:22:10 AM Oh no, Fielding...not these guys. THEY wouldn't snicker, oh no! 20948. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 10:22:40 AM Seriously, who did you think was behind "Clinton is a rapist"? The gossip press? 20949. rubberducky - 5/31/2001 10:22:48 AM Everybody is interested in this story. 20950. Francis Urquhart - 5/31/2001 10:23:49 AM I'm behind the story 100%, but Fielding, if this is some sort of morsel for what you deem to be the indignities heaped on President Clinton, I'm afraid it won't be very filling. 20951. OhioSTOPAS - 5/31/2001 10:26:08 AM Judith (20944): "You would if you were helping her remove it..." 20952. Francis Urquhart - 5/31/2001 10:29:01 AM Ohio 20953. jexster - 5/31/2001 11:03:02 AM From the When-the-Shoe-Is-on-the-Other-Foot-Dept..... 20954. jexster - 5/31/2001 11:10:52 AM And anyone know what's with these young Bush bitches? Another pop for underage drinking... 20955. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 11:12:43 AM McCain's moment is over 20956. iiibbb - 5/31/2001 11:14:49 AM Message # 20954 I guess that means Chelsea is going to take the hypocratic oath with "a grain of salt". 20957. jexster - 5/31/2001 11:21:26 AM Bush Energy Policy a Krusty the Klown Krap Job 20958. jexster - 5/31/2001 11:25:46 AM No indeed it isn't...The Cheney Report on the one hand argues we need 1,900 new power plants by 2020 and on the other acknowledges that plants are being built in impressive numbers without any help from the federal government and its taxpayers. 20959. JudithAtHome - 5/31/2001 11:28:27 AM Just heard on NPR that the Bushwhacker is not giving the Pentagon much of what it asked for...operating expenses for the coming year is about it. A stronger military, but one on a budget. 20960. Francis Urquhart - 5/31/2001 11:28:42 AM Lott is Daschle in 1995 when Nighthorse Campbell switched to the GOP and Daschle stated that Campbell should resign and run as a Republican. When they're reeling 'em in, it is a principled stand necessary for balance. When they are losing 'em, it is a "coup of one." 20961. Cellar Door - 5/31/2001 11:29:09 AM Jenna's just doing this to get to Robert Downey Jr. 20962. jexster - 5/31/2001 11:33:19 AM Got that right Big Injun Chief! 20963. jexster - 5/31/2001 11:35:34 AM Yes Judith. 20964. JudithAtHome - 5/31/2001 11:41:10 AM Sorry, Jex....brain drain here. 20965. Francis Urquhart - 5/31/2001 11:44:02 AM jexster 20966. Fielding - 5/31/2001 11:54:18 AM "Just heard on NPR that the Bushwhacker is not giving the Pentagon much of what it asked for...operating expenses for the coming year is about it. A stronger military, but one on a budget." 20967. Francis Urquhart - 5/31/2001 12:01:51 PM For Those Who Decry the Rapacious Military, Meet George W Bush 20968. glendajean - 5/31/2001 12:03:19 PM toys 20969. Wombat - 5/31/2001 1:35:51 PM The military will have to tighten their belts so that NMD can be funded. 20970. JayAckroyd - 5/31/2001 2:04:58 PM That's why the Pentagon has never liked the NMD. 20971. AceofSpades - 5/31/2001 2:15:39 PM 20972. JayAckroyd - 5/31/2001 2:25:02 PM True. 20973. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 2:26:27 PM False. 20974. JayAckroyd - 5/31/2001 2:26:32 PM True or false: The oil industry receives subsidies from the federal government. 20975. JayAckroyd - 5/31/2001 2:29:06 PM The intent is the same, Indy. In fact, strictly speaking the statement is false because the amount extracted is tied to the current price. People in the late 70s were talking about 40 or 50 dollar a barrel prices, which would have made low yielding sources worth exploiting. 20976. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 2:32:50 PM Link from last time this debate occurred: 20977. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 2:33:45 PM My bad. 20978. JayAckroyd - 5/31/2001 2:34:10 PM James Surowiecki makes a point that occurred to me last night in the New Yorker. 20979. JayAckroyd - 5/31/2001 2:36:15 PM Thanks Indy. That was the point I was trying to make when I said it depends on price. 20980. AceofSpades - 5/31/2001 2:37:55 PM Jay, 20981. JayAckroyd - 5/31/2001 2:39:45 PM This excerpt from the same piece illustrates the other Republican Big Lie--that they favor free markets: 20982. JayAckroyd - 5/31/2001 2:41:37 PM Ace, I know you think you know what other people are thinking, but the least you can do is read what they write. 20983. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 2:42:09 PM Jay: It's generally an anti-development report, though. Notice that it words the supply statement the same way you do: 20984. JayAckroyd - 5/31/2001 2:43:16 PM "Is it because you previously claimed that "oil does not run out" and "does not depreciate, but produces forever, like normal land use rents" but this claim is utterly inconsistent with your claim that ANWR will run out in six months?" 20985. AceofSpades - 5/31/2001 2:43:18 PM 20986. JayAckroyd - 5/31/2001 2:44:49 PM Ace, I didn't ignore it. I wasn't here. 20987. AceofSpades - 5/31/2001 2:46:17 PM Jay, 20988. JayAckroyd - 5/31/2001 2:46:48 PM Yeah, Indy, but that's all just quibbling. The central point is that fields essentially exhausted at some point, and the supply in that field is relatively small. I agree in detail, but think it's a distraction to get too worked up over what is, after all, uncertain. 20989. AceofSpades - 5/31/2001 2:48:28 PM 20990. Fielding - 5/31/2001 2:53:41 PM Ace: 20991. AceofSpades - 5/31/2001 2:56:00 PM Jay yesterday: 20992. JudithAtHome - 5/31/2001 2:56:49 PM Ace: 20993. AceofSpades - 5/31/2001 2:58:19 PM 20994. labwabbit - 5/31/2001 2:58:32 PM ...prolly end up crashing someone in Maine like Auntie and Daddy. 20995. JudithAtHome - 5/31/2001 3:00:11 PM Wouldn't surprise me one bit, Lab. 20996. JudithAtHome - 5/31/2001 3:01:04 PM She would probably lie about it, too...spoiled little brat! 20997. AceofSpades - 5/31/2001 3:02:11 PM 20998. JudithAtHome - 5/31/2001 3:03:16 PM Oh c'mon Ace...don't be so stodgy with all those statistics. 20999. Fielding - 5/31/2001 3:03:53 PM Mine. 21000. Fielding - 5/31/2001 3:04:09 PM Mine. 21001. JudithAtHome - 5/31/2001 3:04:12 PM Okay? 21002. JudithAtHome - 5/31/2001 3:05:27 PM Virtual dog meat...numbers are obviously not my balliwick. 21003. JudithAtHome - 5/31/2001 3:23:57 PM Here's a little tidbit from a story about a wild party tape of Jenna... 21004. AceofSpades - 5/31/2001 3:27:02 PM 21005. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 3:36:38 PM Ace: I need your help in the Sex thread. Vote to oust Nikki Dial, and I'll help you oust Fielding next week. 21006. glendajean - 5/31/2001 3:36:46 PM Judith -- I'd hate to be the Bush kids' Secret Service agent, particularly when they tell him or her that the President is on the line. I doubt if it would be a career enhancement position. 21007. AceofSpades - 5/31/2001 3:41:10 PM Indy, 21008. AceofSpades - 5/31/2001 3:42:11 PM 21009. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 3:46:42 PM Ace: Don't suppose it would help if she gave you a blowjob? 21010. AceofSpades - 5/31/2001 3:51:28 PM 21011. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 3:54:06 PM Thanks, Ace. 21012. jexster - 5/31/2001 4:52:05 PM White House: Leave The Drunk Daughter Alone in the Drunk Tank Please! 21013. jexster - 5/31/2001 5:03:38 PM Without Trent to protect his sorry ass, indeed with Lott and DeLay sharpening the long knives 21014. Cellar Door - 5/31/2001 5:04:06 PM I just got off the phone with Cliff Rothman. He's writing the "Sullivangate" story for "Salon." 21015. Ronski - 5/31/2001 5:05:30 PM Cellar, 21016. Cellar Door - 5/31/2001 5:05:40 PM He asked me a lot of excellent questions and I gave him some highly quotable copy. 21017. Cellar Door - 5/31/2001 5:10:14 PM Sullivan's explanations are pretty pathetic. He seems to be under the illusion that re-infection isn't in the cards when positives have sex without condoms. He doesn't take into account the fact that people with compromised immune systems are open to all sorts of STD infections besides AIDS. 21018. Ronski - 5/31/2001 5:12:32 PM My problem with Sullivan's take on this is the first thing you allude to. I think he treats the issue of reinfection a bit cavalierly. 21019. RosettaStone - 5/31/2001 5:12:53 PM ...Nothing more vicious than a rejected queen, huh, Cellar? 21020. jexster - 5/31/2001 6:00:10 PM Its not a good week for Morons, not a good week at all... 21021. jexster - 5/31/2001 6:00:53 PM Bend over Rosie Here It Comes Again! 21022. jexster - 5/31/2001 6:06:48 PM And hell I forgot the freaks' threat to fillibuster committee assignments if the Democrats don't give Bush a blank check for his judicial nominees! 21023. jexster - 5/31/2001 6:18:28 PM "If a person doesn't have the capacity that we all want that person to have, I suspect hope is in the far distant future, if at all."--Remarks to the Hispanic Scholarship Fund Institute, Washington, D.C., May 22, 2001 21024. RosettaStone - 5/31/2001 6:41:50 PM Looks like gray's hired spinners are in for some problems from California taxpayers. 21025. robertjayb - 5/31/2001 7:05:42 PM Book em, Danno! 21026. Jenerator - 5/31/2001 7:39:57 PM Reminds me (only slightly) of the movie Traffic. 21027. dusty - 5/31/2001 7:48:23 PM OhioSTOPAS 21028. CalGal - 5/31/2001 8:08:41 PM Actually, given that it gets the facts wrong about the reason for the price freeze, it ought not to be trusted so completely. Also, it's a tad breezy with the "California didn't allow new power facilities and then power generators quit trying." Cites would be good, there. I didn't see any, maybe I missed them. 21029. CalGal - 5/31/2001 8:09:20 PM Also, didn't that source have a Dallas URL, or did I misunderstand? 21030. RosettaStone - 5/31/2001 8:18:35 PM The reality is that nothing built, nothing accomplished by California Democrats regarding energy needs. 21031. jexster - 5/31/2001 8:21:46 PM 21032. jexster - 5/31/2001 8:23:15 PM Robert Novak, Mister Inside Republican, appeared today on Inside Politics fresh from fierce fighting on the California Front to report that State Republicans are moaning mightly that Davis kicked ass and took names. 21033. jexster - 5/31/2001 8:23:50 PM Rose I wonder about YOUR grip on reality old girl. 21034. RosettaStone - 5/31/2001 8:24:24 PM Gray better build some more, real soon, Jexster, because summer is coming. 21035. dusty - 5/31/2001 8:25:19 PM Let's see, who to believe. 21036. jexster - 5/31/2001 8:25:27 PM alCOholic....speakin of which....I need a marguerita....how do you say that in Mexican? 21037. jexster - 5/31/2001 8:27:32 PM Let's see, who to believe. 21038. jexster - 5/31/2001 8:29:09 PM ahem 21039. jexster - 5/31/2001 8:30:34 PM It doesn't take a fuckin rocket scientist, it doesn't even take someone of Dusty's limited abilities to see what's what... 21040. jexster - 5/31/2001 8:33:10 PM Oh and by the way not to guild the lilies on Dusty's grave BUT... 21041. dusty - 5/31/2001 8:33:23 PM Jex 21042. dusty - 5/31/2001 8:35:08 PM jexster 21043. CalGal - 5/31/2001 8:37:17 PM On the other hand, a couple of California residents with questionable economic credentials. 21044. dusty - 5/31/2001 8:37:25 PM jexster 21045. dusty - 5/31/2001 8:43:29 PM jexster 21046. RosettaStone - 5/31/2001 8:44:12 PM Build the power plants, and we will come, Jexster. 21047. jexster - 5/31/2001 8:49:53 PM You bet I read the article Dusty. I posted the quote earlier in the week in the Slow Thread. Most economists rightly do not like price caps but many are now either for them or in favor of a windfall profits tax (probably less deadweight loss) but in any event you asked for economists, 21048. jexster - 5/31/2001 8:51:13 PM C'mon Dusty UR not that Lazy....See over there on the right hand side of this page in the little yellow section....see the name Paul Krugman...he's been devoting nearly every other column since December on this....You go find the link UR a smart boy. 21049. jexster - 5/31/2001 8:52:22 PM And yes you may quote me for FERC has shown itself to be a defender of manipulated markets hence an enemy of the free ones, the one that no longer exists in energy and hasn't since the '70's 21050. CalGal - 5/31/2001 8:53:26 PM Oh, that's one other point I wanted to make: the piece says that deregulation in Britain is "successful". 21051. LadyChaos - 5/31/2001 8:54:00 PM jex, 21052. jexster - 5/31/2001 8:57:18 PM If you really wanna know UR shit, you can write Professor Navarro at pnavarro@uci.edu... 21053. RosettaStone - 5/31/2001 8:57:28 PM Always excuses, Jex. Always more excuses. 21054. LadyChaos - 5/31/2001 8:58:04 PM Of course, that's easy for me to say as I sit here in Miami with the AC on and the ceiling fan turning lazily overhead. 21055. LadyChaos - 5/31/2001 8:59:59 PM jex, 21056. jexster - 5/31/2001 9:00:16 PM Long term growth of what and price caps at what level? 21057. dusty - 5/31/2001 9:01:54 PM jexster 21058. dusty - 5/31/2001 9:03:59 PM LadyChaos 21059. LadyChaos - 5/31/2001 9:04:35 PM jex, 21060. jexster - 5/31/2001 9:06:21 PM Because good old fashioned anti-trust law is just that...a 19th century statute written for a 19th not a 21st century economy,.... 21061. jexster - 5/31/2001 9:08:18 PM Not to mention my ahem acquaintance who is a K St Lobbyist for Enron AND the nuclear industry 21062. LadyChaos - 5/31/2001 9:08:23 PM dusty, 21063. CalGal - 5/31/2001 9:09:36 PM I don't know that I disbelieve Krugman on everything yet, but his recent stuff has taken a definitely partisan tone. I don't think calling Bush a liar is objective, no matter how strongly he believes it. 21064. jexster - 5/31/2001 9:09:39 PM Shit stinks LC it only takes functioning olfactories to smell it. 21065. jexster - 5/31/2001 9:13:10 PM and while I am dropping names...a neighbor of Rosie's here....Potomac MD 21066. LadyChaos - 5/31/2001 9:13:52 PM jex, 21067. jexster - 5/31/2001 9:14:08 PM B4 Van Ness et al even existed. 21068. jexster - 5/31/2001 9:17:32 PM Because they CONTROL the market, not Enron, probably Reliant...like El Paso NG controls the natural gas market because it controls access to the only pipeline into california...thus NG which costs 5 bucks MCF in NY costs 14 here. 21069. jexster - 5/31/2001 9:19:27 PM anyway its TOO hot and we in SF have no AC ..temps close to 100 today and I have a doc production request to serve 21070. OhioSTOPAS - 6/1/2001 6:55:37 AM Check out today's Washington Post (www.washingtonpost.com) article on the voting in Florida. The Post identifies by name a sailor stationed in Puerto Rico who mailed his ballot on November 13, days after the election. His vote - for Bush (surprise) - was counted by the Republican (surprise) Duval County election board. The Post goes on to report that Bush picked up 176 votes in 4 northern Florida counties pursuant to absentee ballots that did not meet legal requirements (postmark-less, or in a few cases bearing postmarks after November 7). 21071. OhioSTOPAS - 6/1/2001 7:03:45 AM In Jake Tapper's "Down and Dirty" (pp. 218-219), he reports that on November 10 or 11 a conference call among Warren Tompkins and other Repubican operatives was held on the topic of absentee ballots. Says Tapper, the meeting discussed "having political operatives abroad and near military bases encourage certain soldiers who had registered to vote - but hadn't yet done so - to fill out their ballots and send them in. Voter registration ID made it so they could identify .. . which soldiers, sailors and airmen . . . were Republican." 21072. joezan - 6/1/2001 7:12:24 AM How can this be? 21073. RosettaStone - 6/1/2001 8:32:07 AM Maybe he's really an independent independent? 21074. Cellar Door - 6/1/2001 10:20:46 AM No joe, they can be traced directly to Andrew Sullivan's announcement in the NYT that the AIDS epidemic is over. 21075. jexster - 6/1/2001 10:47:37 AM The ugly face of Kompassionate Konservatism: Jeffords Receives Death Threats 21076. jexster - 6/1/2001 10:49:05 AM Carl Levin, the next chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said it was unlikely that missile defenses would be fielded in President Bush's current term 21077. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 10:50:41 AM "current term".....hahahahhahha!!! 21078. jexster - 6/1/2001 10:54:27 AM 21079. jexster - 6/1/2001 10:57:19 AM Well, Judith have you seen Chief of Staff Leo McGarrity's passionate advocacy of NMD in the True White House? 21080. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 11:00:14 AM In Leos world, you can be sure it will work. They will keep shooting the scene til it does... 21081. jexster - 6/1/2001 11:23:16 AM Missed by 137 miles, President Bartlett likens the Pentagon to Lucy and Charlie Brown playing football. 21082. jexster - 6/1/2001 11:24:19 AM Peter Navarro: It Takes 2 To Tangle Our Energy Future 21083. jexster - 6/1/2001 11:30:35 AM And to preempt the usual and expected drivel about free markets, the Holy Laws of Supply and Demand, and babbitt like crap about California getting what it deserves read 21084. Dusty - 6/1/2001 11:44:52 AM jexster 21085. Dusty - 6/1/2001 11:51:05 AM Jexter, I will give you some credit; you are willing to link to an article that points out the disastrous bungling by Governor Davis: 21086. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 12:06:38 PM 21087. Dusty - 6/1/2001 12:11:06 PM Does this mean that Jex is Jade? 21088. jexster - 6/1/2001 12:13:03 PM I wonder how my link disproved my assertion...wonder still more whether Dusty is dislexic not dumb. 21089. jexster - 6/1/2001 12:17:11 PM Navarro, for those who haven't read the link and are tempted to accept anything that Dusty says, faults Bush and Davis, the latter for among other things 21090. janjon - 6/1/2001 12:17:46 PM I love it when Ace criticizes the way others make their points. 21091. jexster - 6/1/2001 12:18:22 PM and BTW, Navarro and I now have an e-mail relationship.....needed for my MPA Public Policy and Microeconomic Applications seminars this summer and fall. 21092. Dusty - 6/1/2001 12:19:16 PM I'll bite: 21093. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 12:19:42 PM Jexster: 21094. JudithAtHome - 6/1/2001 12:20:58 PM The heading on Jexs link said "It Takes 2 to Tangle...." This looks to me as though it must be an article critical of 2 people, right? 21095. jexster - 6/1/2001 12:21:35 PM 21096. Dusty - 6/1/2001 12:21:58 PM Jex 21097. jexster - 6/1/2001 12:22:46 PM Ace - 21098. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 12:24:30 PM 21099. jexster - 6/1/2001 12:24:57 PM piss poor palaver you dusted off from the ConIntern's Book Ideology for Morons and Other TRUE BELIEVERS 21100. jexster - 6/1/2001 12:25:32 PM assumes facts not in evidence 21101. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 12:27:17 PM 21102. jexster - 6/1/2001 12:27:19 PM If the price of oil hits $100/bbl and gas prices rise to $8 a gallon in consequence, people will use less gas. 21103. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 12:28:39 PM 21104. jexster - 6/1/2001 12:29:00 PM Sure you have described and have posited a free market. And you have a point even in the case of California....I personally favor a rebate instead of price caps...a rebate followed by a windfall profits tax and further rebates...I feel that creates less deadweight loss 21105. Dusty - 6/1/2001 12:29:42 PM jexster 21106. jexster - 6/1/2001 12:31:14 PM I'd love to pick this up in a bit....gotta get off the phone for messenger comin to pick up pleadings.... 21107. Dusty - 6/1/2001 12:32:54 PM jexster 21108. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 12:32:58 PM 21109. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 12:39:19 PM 21110. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 12:45:06 PM 21111. Dusty - 6/1/2001 12:47:22 PM Ace 21112. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 12:54:04 PM 21113. CalGal - 6/1/2001 1:06:39 PM Dusty, 21114. CalGal - 6/1/2001 1:07:47 PM The problem is that there is more demand that supply. 21115. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 1:15:32 PM 21116. OhioSTOPAS - 6/1/2001 1:15:59 PM "The problem is that there is more demand that supply." 21117. Dusty - 6/1/2001 1:16:57 PM AceofSpades 21118. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 1:18:22 PM 21119. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 1:21:23 PM 21120. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 1:22:35 PM 21121. Dusty - 6/1/2001 1:23:22 PM CalGal 21122. Dusty - 6/1/2001 1:24:25 PM {please pretend I checked and corrected the spelling errors in the above) 21123. CalGal - 6/1/2001 1:26:24 PM Well, that's still a demand/supply problem. 21124. Dusty - 6/1/2001 1:28:51 PM AceofSpades 21125. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 1:29:02 PM 21126. CalGal - 6/1/2001 1:30:12 PM Dusty, 21127. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 1:31:53 PM 21128. CalGal - 6/1/2001 1:36:03 PM Ace, 21129. Dusty - 6/1/2001 1:36:51 PM AceofSpades 21130. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 1:37:11 PM 21131. CalGal - 6/1/2001 1:38:17 PM Dusty, 21132. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 1:39:19 PM 21133. CalGal - 6/1/2001 1:41:10 PM Further to my last post--actually, maybe the daily spot market is still run by that auction. I'll have to check. 21134. Dusty - 6/1/2001 1:41:35 PM CalGal 21135. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 1:46:22 PM 21136. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 1:50:41 PM 21137. OhioSTOPAS - 6/1/2001 1:51:33 PM Ace (#21132): To the contrary, I don't disagree with CalGal. I think she's right that California's problems are largely due to an oligopoly of power producers manipulating the system. 21138. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 1:58:01 PM 21139. CalGal - 6/1/2001 1:58:10 PM Ohio has stated my position exactly, and I thank him. 21140. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 2:01:07 PM 21141. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 2:06:22 PM 21142. MsIvoryTower - 6/1/2001 2:06:41 PM We are beginning to have occasional power failures here in Texas. It started when the thermometer started rising, and so far hasn't happened frequently enough to raise questions, but if it continues, I suspect we'll be having some major blackouts later this summer. 21143. MsIvoryTower - 6/1/2001 2:07:04 PM 21144. Dusty - 6/1/2001 2:08:41 PM OhioSTOPAS 21145. CalGal - 6/1/2001 2:11:12 PM Ms, 21146. CalGal - 6/1/2001 2:11:39 PM Whoops--that was Dusty, not the Ms. Sorry. 21147. CalGal - 6/1/2001 2:13:09 PM Ace, 21148. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 2:13:41 PM 21149. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 2:16:00 PM 21150. MsIvoryTower - 6/1/2001 2:17:16 PM Ace 21151. CalGal - 6/1/2001 2:20:55 PM Why no other western state has blackouts 21152. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 2:21:12 PM 21153. jexster - 6/1/2001 2:22:20 PM The Big Dog is Back! 21154. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 2:22:26 PM 21155. MsIvoryTower - 6/1/2001 2:23:25 PM I'm talking about the fact that every power grid is only designed to go X% over average, and sometimes events conspire to put more of a demand on the grid 21156. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 2:26:10 PM 21157. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 2:29:01 PM If it hasn't happened with such frequency in the past, why do you assume it can be so easily explained away now? 21158. CalGal - 6/1/2001 2:29:04 PM If that state is forced to buy power on the spot-market 21159. Dusty - 6/1/2001 2:31:07 PM AceofSpades 21160. jexster - 6/1/2001 2:31:38 PM OOo this debate is civil! 21161. Dusty - 6/1/2001 2:34:55 PM I found the article. 21162. jexster - 6/1/2001 2:34:57 PM but i can't resist this 21163. Dusty - 6/1/2001 2:42:58 PM An interesting chart from the Economist: 21164. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 2:47:40 PM 21165. OhioSTOPAS - 6/1/2001 2:49:02 PM Dusty (Message # 21144): It appears to me that the answer is 2, other states' systems are different. It appears that in California, many of those in-state power plants that exist are owned by the same out-of-state suppliers that would make up the difference between California's in-state capacity and its demand. Furthermore, California's in-state power plants are under no contractual or regulatory requirement to supply power at a reasonable rate, as appears to be the case in some other states. These circumstances make supply and price manipulation easier than in other states. 21166. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 2:49:08 PM 21167. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 2:52:30 PM 21168. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 2:54:12 PM 21169. Dusty - 6/1/2001 2:55:01 PM AceofSpades 21170. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 2:57:48 PM "The price "manipulation" (the better term) is a result of oligarchic supply constriction itself a deadweight loss." 21171. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 2:59:42 PM "The charts refer to total demand and total (within CA) production capacity, not just windmills. " 21172. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 3:03:08 PM 21173. OhioSTOPAS - 6/1/2001 3:03:36 PM "zero evidence"? The gigantic increases in price serve as evidence of collusion. Res ipsa loquitor, "when you have eliminated the impossible . . .", et cetera. 21174. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 3:06:33 PM "The gigantic increases in price serve as evidence of collusion..." 21175. CalGal - 6/1/2001 3:07:52 PM We've heard in this thread that demand in CA is down. 21176. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 3:10:14 PM CalIdiot: 21177. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 3:12:48 PM 21178. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 3:15:03 PM 21179. OhioSTOPAS - 6/1/2001 3:17:07 PM 21180. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 3:21:20 PM "...with a record of $1,900 during an emergency last month..." 21181. OhioSTOPAS - 6/1/2001 3:28:26 PM As for the increase in natural gas prices, that too has circumstances suggestive of price manipulation: 21182. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 3:28:30 PM 21183. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 3:32:05 PM 21184. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 3:37:40 PM 21185. OhioSTOPAS - 6/1/2001 3:40:48 PM Take a breath, Ace. I didn't say we didn't need more energy production. I cited the failure to encourage power production as one of California's mistakes. 21186. OhioSTOPAS - 6/1/2001 3:44:55 PM From the same article cited in 21181: 21187. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 3:52:31 PM 21188. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 3:53:25 PM 21189. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 3:57:10 PM 21190. RosettaStone - 6/1/2001 4:03:45 PM Just saw interesting Fox News video of President Bush shaking hands and talking with former President Clinton in church today. Then he walks right past former VP Gore in the same front-row pew, ignoring him. 21191. OhioSTOPAS - 6/1/2001 4:08:40 PM My opinion is the opposite of 21187. It seems to me that California's unique problems suggest the existence (not the NON-existence) of collusion. If it were merely market forces at work, those forces would hit every state that imports energy. 21192. OhioSTOPAS - 6/1/2001 4:16:49 PM Gotta go. Have a good Friday, all. 21193. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 4:22:20 PM If it were merely market forces at work, those forces would hit every state that imports energy. 21194. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 4:22:48 PM Furthermore, since no other state is suffering regular blackouts like California, there seems to be enough energy to go around. 21195. AceofSpades - 6/1/2001 4:22:59 PM 21196. JayAckroyd - 6/1/2001 4:26:13 PM 21144
You gotta plan ahead. It doesn't matter really. The Senate can just vote to overturn SR8, and pass another resolution that disempowers the republicans.
We have that, here in Miami. Only they don't call themselves "anarchists," but rather "Cubans."
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 5, 2001
Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. LOTT) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
RESOLUTION
Relative to Senate procedure in the 107th Congress.
Resolved, That notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXV, or any other provision of the Standing Rules or Standing Orders of the Senate, the committees of the Senate, including Joint and Special Committees, for the 107th Congress shall be composed equally of members of both parties...
SEC. 2. Provided, That such committee ratios shall remain in effect for the remainder of the 107th Congress, except that if at any time during the 107th Congress either party attains a majority of the whole number of Senators, then each committee ratio shall be adjusted to reflect the ratio of the parties in the Senate, and the provisions of this resolution shall have no further effect... and the committee chairmanships shall be held by the party which has attained a majority of the whole number of Senators.
That's iron-clad: No change in status unless one side attains MAJORITY status.
There's a big problem, of course: Refusing to give the Senate over to the Dems will likely induce Jeffords to switch to Dem.
Oh?
You got sixty votes for that?
The Democrats do not have a "majority," either. And the signed a document -- SIGNED it -- stating that the power-sharing would remain in effect UNTIL they got an actual majority.
Which they do not have.
That such committee ratios shall remain in effect for the remainder of the 107th Congress, except that if at any time during the 107th Congress either party attains a majority of the whole number of Senators,
Which part of this sentence don't you understand?
Do you really think that the republicans will filibuster to retain control of a senate in which they no longer have a majority? Would this be wise, politically?
"Do you really think that the republicans will filibuster to retain control of a senate in which they no longer have a majority?"
Maybe. As I said, the Democrats lack a majority as well. There is a signed contract.
Do contracts mean anything to you people?
"Would this be wise, politically?"
It should be very wise, except that people like you will whine that a contract doesn't mean what it says.
Jeffords will vote organizationally with the Dems. I suspect that will count as a majority.
But it's not.
Which part of this sentence don't you understand?
None. I assume this means in votes about the structure and procedures of the senate. Jeffords has said he'd vote with the democrats. As you've said (I think) party affiliation doesn't matter, constitutionally. Votes matter. Jeffords is gonna vote for democratic committee chairs. End of story.
"That such committee ratios shall remain in effect for the remainder of the 107th Congress, except that if at any time during the 107th Congress either party attains a majority of the whole number of Senators"
The Democrats have not "attained a majority" of the Senators.
I thought you were a lawyer.
"SEC. 2. Provided, That such committee ratios shall remain in effect for the remainder of the 107th Congress, except that if at any time during the 107th Congress either party attains a majority of the whole number of Senators, then each committee ratio shall be adjusted to reflect the ratio of the parties in the Senate, and the provisions of this resolution shall have no further effect... and the committee chairmanships shall be held by the party which has attained a majority of the whole number of Senators. "
The agreement is only dissolved when a party attains a majority of the Senators.
Not when a party attains a majority of votes. But when a party attains a majority of Senators.
If it meant "votes," it would say "votes." It does not say "votes."
Jay, can you show me where it says "votes"?
Jay,
If it could be undone by a vote, then why couldn't the Republicans (when they had fifty votes) vote to undo the power-sharing agreement (with Cheney's tie-breaking vote) and give themselves a greater number of seats on each committee?
if it were purely "votes," they could do that. Do you think Daschle intended that?
What other measure do you propose? Look, I thought you were precise and correct when you dissed the people who wanted to make it illegal to change parties after an election. That's obviously crazy. Parties have no constitutional basis. Same here. The only way to decide whether someone is a member of a party is to see how they vote. Anything else is jabber, talk outside of the legislative process.
See, fifty plus the tiebreaker equals fifty one, which is a "majority of votes," but they didn't contemplate that the Republicans could reneg on the agreement by simple votes, now did they?
"The Dem party has attained a majority of the whole number of senators, actually. "
No, they don't. A majority means 51.
The Democrats have a narrow plurality. Which is precisely what the Republicans had on January 8 (adding in the tiebreaking vote of the President of the Senate, Cheney).
if it were purely "votes," they could do that. Do you think Daschle intended that?"
Because they decided that the better compromise was to give themselves override powers as part of the deal--as we saw in the Olsen case. The dems agreed to that because it was the best deal they could get given the Cheney override. What's complicated about that? It was a political compromise. Losing a member changes the landscape. Is it surprising that the deal changes in that case?
"Parties have no constitutional basis. Same here. The only way to decide whether someone is a member of a party is to see how they vote. Anything else is jabber, talk outside of the legislative process. "
Incorrect. Senate rules establish what powers the "Majority Party" has. It may not be in the constitution, but it's in the Senate rules.
Further, there's a signed contract speaking of "a majority of the Senators."
Yes, I know. They have a majority. They have Jeffords. Jeffords votes organizationally with the Dems, which means he'll be voting for Dem committee chairs, Dem leadership roles, and so on.
That means that the Dems have 51 voters voting for them. A majority.
The contract says it doesn't.
You're wrong, as usual.
The Majority Party in Congress doesn't necessarily have to elect the Speaker of the House from its ranks --because the Speaker of the House is determined by votes. If a number of Republicans defected to vote for Gephardt for Speaker of the House, he would be the speaker... but Republicans would still be the "Majority Party."
I hope they enforce the deal. We have the 30 of the votes needed to fillibuster... the last ten will be tough to get.
And then you can whine, whine, whine your way home.
Do you really think that the republicans will filibuster to retain control of a senate in which they no longer have a majority? Would this be wise, politically?
What other measure (other than votes) do you propose?
You're saying a senate resolution is a contract??!!??
Yes, and when you compromise, sometimes you give on issues... like what circumstances will trigger an undoing of the agreement.
And apparently Daschle gave on this issue.
???? Fine. It doesn't have anything to do with what I said. Jeffords has said that he will vote organizationally with the Democrats. That gives them a majority.
Divas never answer quetions. They only emote.
And what better place to do so than "The Mote"?
Right, Ace?
Actually, Daschle kicked Lott's ass on the entire agreement, according to the many Republican senators who are dissatisfied with their majority leader.
I already answered this, Dickhead. I will answer again: Yes, there was a "concerted effort" to drive him out of office when he was revealed to have committed multiple felonies in office (plus dozens of felonies we know he did, but could never prove, do to contempunacious witnesses and mysteriously disappearing records).
Just like there was a "concerted effort" to drive Nixon from office when he was revealed to be a lawbreaker.
Before that? There was digging into lawbreaking the press didn't cover adequately... just like with Nixon.
Was that a "concerted effort to drive him from office"?
No-- that was "journalism." Liberals think it's a felony, apparently, to conspire to commit journalism.
"Do you really think that the republicans will filibuster to retain control of a senate in which they no longer have a majority?"
Already answered. Here's the answer again: I don't know. I can see thirty votes; the last ten are a tough row to hoe.
Republicans are dispirited now. They would not fight *at this moment*. But give them the weekend, and we shall see.
"Would this be wise, politically? "
We have a contract. I think it is wise for both parties to honor the terms of a contract they signed.
"What other measure (other than votes) do you propose? "
The measure stated in the contract.
"You're saying a senate resolution is a contract??!!??"
Yes. I've called it such ten times. An agreement knowingly and willingly signed to two parties in exchange for something of value is a "contract." Look it up in Black's Legal Dictionary.
Wrong. The contract specifies a "Majority of the Senators," not a "majority of the votes of the Senate."
It is simple enough to say "a majority of the votes of the Senate" if that is what you mean.
When you say "a Majority of the Senators," you mean -- get this -- a majority of the senators.
JayBitch:
What are you chuckling about, Sweet Pants?
SMACK BUSH!!!
No this is the first time you've answered this. Earlier you said you were a Clinton supporter who lost the faith when it turned out he was a perjurer. That is, when it was made clear that he lied about the relationship with Lewinsky, under oath. This was way after the "felonies" you cite in this message that were charged by the movement conservatives and proved to be unfounded by later (expensive federal) investigation. So you need to reconcile your view that it was only after the "perjury" that you decided Clinton should go and your currently expressed view about his felonious behavior before then.
Let me see...
First, Jay thinks Republicans should give up the Presidency due to the stupidity of "confused Democratic voters" who didn't understand how to follow an arrow to a hole.
Now he says they should give up control of the Senate -- rightfully still theirs, by contract, at least until Jeffords jumps to the Democratic party -- to correct the stupidity of "confused Democratic Congressmen" who didn't understand that a "majority of the Senators" isn't the same thing as "a majority of the votes of Senators."
No, asswipe, I gave that answer earlier.
Yes, I know. But the Dems have a majority of votes voting for them organizationally--selection of senate officers, committee appointments, and so on. Olympia Snow can't decide to vote a particular Democrat onto a committee. Jeffords can, now that he's left the Republicans. Even though he is an independent he is voting with the Dems on who gets their committee seats, who their majority leader is, and so on. That gives them a majority.
Jay,
You're a little partisan whining bitch-boy who can't read standard English.
If this were true, it would be a transparent attempt to change the subject, in a classic losing debater's strategy.
But it is not true. I have never once argued that the result of the election should be in doubt. I've had repeatedly said that the margin of error was greater than the margin of victory,and the selection of the victor was necessarily arbitrary.
[chuckle]
"The contract specifies a "Majority of the Senators," not a "majority of the votes of the Senate."
Yes, I know. But the Dems have a majority of votes voting for them organizationally--selection of senate "
Unfortunately, the contract signed by Daschle and Gephard did not specify it would be dissolved in case of a "majority of votes voting for them organizationally," but rather only when one party had "attained a Majority of the whole number of Senators."
You people are fucking freaks. A contract spells out "This contract will not be dissolved until X" and you begin whining that "Y is ALMOST as good as X."
Well, you know: Not really. The contract says X. Not Y. And not W or Z, either.
The contract could not be undone by "a majority of votes (Cheney breaking the tie);" it cannot be undone now.
Unless the republicans relinquish their right to fight, which they are 75% likely to do, or in case Jeffords jumps to the Dems.
The measure stated in the contract.
What was that measure again?
Jay,
If they meant "a majority of the votes," why didn't they say so?
Do you imagine that Senators do not understand the difference between Senators and votes of Senators?
As Jay points out, it won't be considered a contract.
Unfortunately, the contract signed by Daschle and Gephard did not specify it would be dissolved in case of a "majority of votes voting for them organizationally," but rather only when one party had "attained a Majority of the whole number of Senators."
Those two descriptions are synonomous. The Dem party has attained a majority of the whole number of Senators. The only way to count that is not by party registration (which it doesn't specify, you note) but by how many vote in the party leadership and committee decisions.
1) Could the 50 Republicans have voted to undo the contract, with Cheney's tiebreaker?
If not, why not? Does 51 votes of 101 not constitute a Majority?
2) Why do you imagine that the "World's Greatest Deliberative Body," which deals with pariamentary procedure and hypertechnical rules day in day out, nevermind a little job called "legislation," doesn't understand the difference between Senators and votes of Senators?
Answer the above questions.
The Senate Rules deal with Party. Party is expressly a part of the Senate's rules of organization.
And James Trafficant voted for the Republican Speaker of the House, but he remains a Democrat.
A "vote" is not synonymous for a "Senator."
See, a "Senator" is a living person. A "vote" is an indication in favor of or against a proposition -- it's not even a physical thing.
I'm leaving now.
Chuckling.
I imagine the question is largely moot, because Jeffords will become a Democrat if forced to.
Because party has no constitutional existence, as was implicit in your comments upthread about how stupid it was to suggest that senators not be allowed to change parties.
Try looking up the Senate's Rules, Genius. Believe it or not, there are actually rules and laws and regulations apart from the Constitution itself.
Or even the Declaration of Independence.
I mean -- there are whole big stacks of laws and stuff. Piles, really. Big, fat books. SOme of which I read, and you haven't.
restaing my questions:
Do you really think that the republicans will filibuster to retain control of a senate in which they no longer have a majority? Would this be wise, politically?
What other measure (other than votes) do you propose?
You're saying a senate resolution is a contract??!!??
I acknowledge that you said yes to the last question. I'm leaving that yes up for the amusement of other participants.
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, ASSHOLE:
1) Could the 50 Republicans have voted to undo the contract, with Cheney's tiebreaker?
If not, why not? Does 51 votes of 101 not constitute a Majority?
2) Why do you imagine that the "World's Greatest Deliberative Body," which deals with pariamentary procedure and hypertechnical rules day in day out, nevermind a little job called "legislation," doesn't understand the difference between Senators and votes of Senators?
Yes. And what happens to Senators who don't belong to one of the two major parties? They declare. They can't go back and forth between parties and vote for both the majority and minority leaders, for example, or for the whip.
No, they declare what party they will vote with for organizational purposes and that counts towards the majority.
It's not like this hasn't happened before, you know.
20450. AceofSpades - 5/25/01 11:40:40 PM
"Do you really think that the republicans will filibuster to retain control of a senate in which they no longer have a majority?"
Already answered. Here's the answer again: I don't know. I can see thirty votes; the last ten are a tough row to hoe.
Republicans are dispirited now. They would not fight *at this moment*. But give them the weekend, and we shall see.
"Would this be wise, politically? "
We have a contract. I think it is wise for both parties to honor the terms of a contract they signed.
"What other measure (other than votes) do you propose? "
The measure stated in the contract.
"You're saying a senate resolution is a contract??!!??"
Yes. I've called it such ten times. An agreement knowingly and willingly signed to two parties in exchange for something of value is a "contract." Look it up in Black's Legal Dictionary.
See, Dickhead, I already answered, twenty posts again. Still waiting for your answers.
The language quoted by Ace appears to only apply to the ratio of each party on each committee. Jeffords defection still leaves the Dems in charge of the committees and their agendas, just as the Repubs were under soon to be ex-majority leader Lott. I agree, the ratios should stay 50-50, the question then comes up on how to count Jeffords, who still has to be seated on committees. Do you count him as a Repub, since that was his most recent affiliation, or do you count him as a Dem, since he is now voting with the Dems on organizational matters?
Speaker of the House is not the same as a Senate leadership position. Speaker of the House is voted on by all representatives. Senate party leadership positions are only voted on by party. It's not an accurate comparison.
No, there is no question. He has stated the answer: he is to be counted as a Democrat for purposes of organization.
To get back to LC's question about how an Anarchist society would enforce a non-capitalist free market, or for that matter enforce ANYTHING, without resorting to some form of state power. This really is the nub of the problem facing Anarchists, the only real tools available to them are ostracism and unstructured violence (a la spontaneous mobs).
1) Could the 50 Republicans have voted to undo the contract, with Cheney's tiebreaker?
Sure. It's not a contract. It's a political compromise, Black's Law Dictionary notwithstanding. Or, if you prefer, a new contract would have been in place.
2) Why do you imagine that the "World's Greatest Deliberative Body," which deals with pariamentary procedure and hypertechnical rules day in day out, nevermind a little job called "legislation," doesn't understand the difference between Senators and votes of Senators?
Because there's no way to count senators except by their votes. But, IAC, if you want to count senators by declared party affiliation, then it's 50D, 49R and 1I. R is out. D is in.
Wait for it Cal, let's let Ace or Stumbo answer on how to count Jeffords for purposes of committee seating.
GEE, CAL-- HOW DO THEY DETERMINE PARTY?
Answer my questions:
1) Could the 50 Republicans have voted to undo the contract, with Cheney's tiebreaker?
If not, why not? Does 51 votes of 101 not constitute a Majority?
If "a majority of votes of the Senators" was all you needed to undo the arrangement, then I guess you agree that the Republicans could have undone it at any time they liked?
Yes?
or No?
2) Why do you imagine that the "World's Greatest Deliberative Body," which deals with pariamentary procedure and hypertechnical rules day in day out, nevermind a little job called "legislation," doesn't understand the difference between Senators and votes of Senators?
Don't get me started. I did not follow CG's suggestion and put the Libertarian discussion from the fray archives in the butterscotch bar. I didn't think anyone would be interested in the long haul. Look at that discussion.
Jay - How can I look at that discussion, you haven't put a link to it on the butterscotch bar? [;-}
Wait for it Cal, let's let Ace or Stumbo answer on how to count Jeffords for purposes of committee seating.
This is irrelevant. The rules of both houses of Congress specify how the majority party and majority power shall divvy up committee-seats. Democrats CHOOSE TO give Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., a seat; they do not HAVE TO, just as they do not presently give Trafficant a committee seat.
If Democrats wanted, they could stiff Jeffords on committee-seats. Of course, they've agreed in advance to give him certain seats; but no independent or minor-party representative has the right to be "counted" as either Democrat or Republican.
Because there's no way to count senators except by their votes. But, IAC, if you want to count senators by declared party affiliation, then it's 50D, 49R and 1I. R is out. D is in.
Unfortunately, 50 out of 100 is not a "majority," and has not been since the word was defined 5000 years ago.
See ya, sissy.
Ace - Are you saying that a sitting Senator in good standing can be denied any seat on any committee?
They determine party based on who the Senator decides to vote for in party leadership and committee decisions.
Answer my questions:
But Ace. You just now said you didn't care about my opinions or ever want them--much less demand them.
You are very confusing.
In answer to your questions:
1) Sure. I was actually surprised they didn't, given how pissed off they were at Lott for agreeing to it.
2) This question doesn't make sense. In any event, I would say that they do understand it and that nonetheless, all Republican senators yesterday and the day before readily admitted that they had lost the leadership in the Senate. So even if it is true that one Senator has decided to challenge this (and that's not a given) it is clearly true that the World's Greatest Deliberative Body all thought that the wording of the agreement was intended to count the votes of Senators as they voted on organizational matters.
Ace - Are you saying that a sitting Senator in good standing can be denied any seat on any committee?
Yes. You guys don't know much about government, bluff though you do.
Do you think Bernie Sanders has a right to be a part of any particular committee? If so, how many? He is one man out of 435; how many committees should he be on?
Committee seats are awarded by the majority party and minority party, according to precedent and (occasionally) new rules they agree to, as they agreed to on January 8.
When Smith of NH became an Independent, he lost all his committee seats, including his chairmanship, because he was no longer a Republican. Now, Republicans could have given him a few seats, to be nice, and to get his vote. But they were under no compunction to do so. And they did not do so, I believe, until he became an R again.
Jeffords has no "right" to any committee seats, except as he might have negotiated or which the party he votes with decides to give him.
For your information, Bernie Sanders is appointed to committees by the Democratic Leadership. Not because they are obligated to, but because he is a reliable vote they don't want to alienate, and on the committees he's assigned to he will vote very left-liberal anyway, which makes him an ersatz Democratic vote.
Sanders has no "seniority" other than what the Democrats have agreed to. Even were he the oldest member of Congress, he could not claim chairmanships based on seniority.
And when Jeffords is assigned to Senate committees, he will be assigned there as part of the Democrats' quota-- not as an Independent who has the right to sit on committees of his choosing.
it will not be the case that Jeffords gets a seat, then the Democrats get their ten, then the Republicans get nine. One of the Democrats' ten will go to Jeffords. And what will he be "counted" as? Well, as an Independent, just as Bernie Sanders is counted. But he is given his seat by the Democrats, just as Republicans COULD HAVE given Bob Smith a Republican seat to keep him happy.
Exactly. He's a Democrat, organizationally speaking. Just as you've been told.
I like the way you've jumped on vK's mistake and then attributed it to everyone who disagrees with you--and then spent three posts stating the painfully obvious, rather than explaining how it is that the Dems don't actually have a majority.
But since your post makes it clear that in fact, Jeffords is organizationally a Democrat and therefore the Dems have a majority, I guess I shouldn't point that out.
How is the Majority leader determined? By the party that has the most voters determining their leader. That's the Dems.
If you're imagining that somehow Congressmen have the right to a certain number of seats on committees, how come James Trafficant has no seat on any committees?
Answer: Because the Constitution gives each house the right to make its own rules, and the rules they've made assign the majority and minority parties the power to appoint members to committees. The rules do not give minor parties any such right. When an independent or minor-party Congressmen sits on a committee, he does so because a major party appointed him.
Is that "unfair"?
Maybe. But those are the rules, and they've been the rules for a long, long time.
Hag,
You're a fucking idiot.
The fact that the Democrats appoint Bernie Sanders to a few committees, and that he will generally vote with them, does not in fact make him a "Democrat."
And the fact that Jeffords will vote with Democrats (who disputes this? He's been doing it for 20+ years) does not make him a Democrat, and it does not, as the contract requires, mean that the Democrats have "attained a Majority of the whole number of Senators."
They wrote the agreement precisely to prevent a change of power based on votes alone -- that's why they didn't mention VOTES. Because they didn't want the Republicans to undo the agreement with 51 votes.
So they didn't use the term votes. They restricted the terms of dissolution to the situation in which one party attains a majority of the SENATORS, not a majority of the Senate's votes.
Again, it's fairly simple to distinguish between them. Even a jackass, like yourself, should be able to see the difference between a Senator and a Senator's vote.
He is arguing that Republicans must honor the resolution's "Spirit" -- which, Hag, is different from the letter of the agreement.
Behind the scenes, Daschle is fuming that Jeffords did not switch to the Democrat Party. According to Congessional staffers, Daschle is preparing to launch a full assault in the media against the Republicans if they press this issue. Daschle was heard saying that it "is the spirit of the agreement that matters."
Fascinating. I look and look in the Senate web site and can't find anything definitive on how committees are apportioned or on the rights of a sitting senator. I did not know that a Senator in good standing could be denied a seat on any of the existing committees. Fascinating, we have such a venal system of governance.
Cal,
Please explain how the Republicans needed to sign a powersharing agreement when they had 51 votes to control the Senate (but no majority), and yet the Democrats can control the Senate with the same 51 votes (but no actual majority).
Please explain this. I don't understand. Why is it 51 Republican votes but no majority results in the need for power-sharing, but 51 Democratic VOTES (but no actual Democratic majority) repeals the very power-sharing agreement designed to handle 51 votes without a majority?
Please, please, PLEASE explain!!! It seems frighteningly inconsistent to me that 51 Republican votes/no majority is NOT enough to control the Senate, and yet 51 Democratic votes/no majority IS.
At any rate, so the leadership changes, but the committee ratios stay at 50/50 until Strom kicks off. It's the leadership's ability to control the agenda that really matters.
Republicans: 50 Senators plus one vote voting with them (Cheney's) = need for a powersharing agreement
Democrats: 50 Senators plus one vote voting with them (Jeffords') = undoes the powersharing agreement, despite the fact that the agreement states it will continue through the entire term (until 2003), UNLESS one party "attains a Majority of the Senators"
"At any rate, so the leadership changes, but the committee ratios stay at 50/50 until Strom kicks off. It's the leadership's ability to control the agenda that really matters."
Well, Cal, Jay, and Daschle dispute that point. Cal, Jay, and Daschle think that it's time for unequal representation on the committees.
And I dispute the fact that that leadership automatically changes, though perhaps I misread the agreement. I THOUGHT it said that everything would continue as it had UNTIL one party broke the deadlock by gaining another Senator. I will go check it out again.
Relative to Senate procedure in the 107th Congress.
Resolved, That notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXV, or any other provision of the Standing Rules or Standing Orders of the Senate, the committees of the Senate, including Joint and Special Committees, for the 107th Congress shall be composed equally of members of both parties, to be appointed at a later time by the two Leaders; that the budgets and office space for such committees, and all other subgroups, shall likewise be equal, with up to an additional 10 percent to be allocated for administrative expenses to be determined by the Rules Committee, with the total administrative expenses allocation for all committees not to exceed historic levels; and that the Chairman of a full committee may discharge a subcommittee of any Legislative or Executive Calendar item which has not been reported because of a tie vote and place it on the full committee's agenda.
SEC. 3. Pursuant to the provisions and exceptions listed above, the following additional Standing Orders shall be in effect for the 107th Congress:
(1) If a committee has not reported out a legislative item or nomination because of a tie vote, then, after notice of such tie vote has been transmitted to the Senate by that committee and printed in the Record, the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader may, only after consultation with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the committee, make a motion to discharge such legislative item or nomination, and time for debate on such motion shall be limited to 4 hours, to be equally divided between the two Leaders, with no other motions, points of order, or amendments in order: Provided, That following the use or yielding back of time, a vote occur on the motion to discharge, without any intervening action, motion, or debate, and if agreed to it be placed immediately on the Calendar of Business (in the case of legislation) or the Executive Calendar (in the case of a nomination).
(3) Both Leaders shall seek to attain an equal balance of the interests of the two parties when scheduling and debating legislative and executive business generally, and in keeping with the present Senate precedents, a motion to proceed to any Legislative or Executive Calendar item shall continue to be considered the prerogative of the Majority Leader, although the Senate Rules do not prohibit the right of the Democratic Leader, or any other Senator, to move to proceed to any item.
I dunno. It seems to me that the important parts of the agreement remain in effect -- equal representation, co-chairmen, etc.
I don't know about the powers of actual "leadership," whatever they are, because I don't see them expressly mentioned in the document. Maybe you could point out the relevant language?
Hag,
Perhaps you should consider why the resolution was passed in the first place -- because the Republicans had the VOTES for majority status and control but not the actual SENATORS for a majority.
So I'm a little confused as to why Democrats can now abrogate the agreement, despite the fact that they only have enough VOTES for majority status but not the actual SENATORS for a majority.
Can you explain this curious situation?
Ace - Nowhere in your cite is there a mention of "co-chairmen", in fact there are several mentions of "the Chairman" and even "the Chairman and Ranking Member of the committee". The fact that nothing is mentioned regarding the changing of Majority Leader and Committee Chairs simply means that whichever party has the votes, rather than the members, controls the positions. Thus we wait Strom's demise to change the ratios on the committees.
Well, I guess "cochairmen" is implicit on evenly balanced committees.
Still, I do not see any mention of the fruits of leadership. If that is implicit, then I guess it's not covered by the document, and so Daschle will become the "leader" of sorts.
Nevertheless, I think the committees still have to remain equally divided, with all ties going to the full Senate, which seems to me more important.
Cool.
I think it is clear you are on to something.
Of course, it won't work out to the benefit of the GOP for one of two reasons:
Ace - We sort of reverse the current situation, where Lott could bottle up the campaign finance bill as long as he did, for example. However, the difference is that now the Dems have an actual majority in that Jeffords will vote with the Dems at least as often as Breaux does.
Already the shift in power has it's effect, Chris Cox has asked Bush to withdraw his name from nomination for the Federal Judiciary.
However, the difference is that now the Dems have an actual majority in that Jeffords will vote with the Dems at least as often as Breaux does.
Huh?
No, you still don't have an "actual majority." Does the fact that 12 Dems voted for the Tax Cut mean that the R's have an "actual majority"? No, it does not.
Further, Jeffords has always voted with Dems anyway; it's not like you have an extra vote.
PS, UPI just picked up the story-- R's are considering enforcing the resolution, as written: No change in committee ratios, tie votes go to the full Senate for voting.
If the state at issue in the 20000 election had been New York, or if the Warren Court was still on the bench, the result would have been different.
This time, the democrats hold the cards. If Nickels wants to shut down the government over the wording of the resolution, it would play right into the Democrats' hands. Once the Republicans had suffered their maximum damage (like in the Gingrich shut-down, which was the end of Gingrich), only then will Jeffords hold another press conference in Vermont to announce that he is becoming a full Democrat.
A shutdown would also give people like Chaffee even more power to moderate Bush's agenda.
So the worst think that Nickles could do is whine like a baby over the wording of the resolution.
I hope he tries a filibuster. The Republicans would never get another judge on the Supreme Court.
Fielding,
Now that the tax cut has passed, you can shut down the government all you like.
No new money. Continuing resolutions only authorize the same budget amount.
If you're claiming the Dems would unilaterally refuse to pass continuing resolutions -- go for it, I say.
Facts are facts: The situation WAS that we had 51 Republican votes, and Dems claimed that wasn't a "majority." So we drafted a power-sharing agreement which would only dissolve when one party DID get an actual majority.
So now you have 51 votes... as we did. But no majority. And yet you claim that suddenly 50 Senators/51 votes IS a majority, when 50 Senators/51 votes was not a majority for us.
I hope Republicans get some steel and fillibuster.
Ace - I, as noted, agree that the Dems should let the agreement stand as stated, 50/50 splits on committees and ties can be refered to the full Senate by either leader. I'll be a little surprised if the Dems can get past the partisan feedback loop they are in and do this without a fuss. They have the semantical loophole that technically there are not 101 Senators, only 100, the Veep only gets to vote if the actual Senators tie. And since the Dems can muster 51 Senators to vote for the Dems organizational proposals they can claim a majority. I expect, given the track record of short sighted partisanship, that the Dems will at least attempt to run with this loophole.
Good. We're all agreed -- let Democrats unilaterally refuse to pass CR's. And then let them explain to millions of civil servants who aren't being paid that they'll just have to work without pay for two years for abortion rights.
I honestly think this country needs a divorce.
I could live very happily if I never had to see another liberal for the rest of my life. 
She's got a certain -- oh, what's the french term for it -- a certain je ne se Webb Hubbell about her, don't she?
Ace - If that is really the case, why do you spend so much time here rather than in, say, Freeperville?
I read that Chelsea is graduating from Stanford next month, I was stunned. Shit time just goes by faster and faster as one gets older.
It really is the case.
I don't know why I spend time here. I'm doing a lot of writing, and the Internet is always here as a time waster.
But I really would love to see an Ayn Rand fantasy come true some day, when all of the parasites on the productive classes get exiled to their own little patch of wilderness. And then they can live in the muck for all of eternity, "taxing" each other's supply of muck and mire and redistributing it to those who don't have enough grime.
But why here, a place at least as populated by Liberals as by Conservatives, rather than some Conservative only web gathering? I think that you would be bored to the point of having to argue neo-liberal positions with the Freepers.
Which parasites? How would you seperate them out and still have enough of the working class left to exploit?
Very, very odd. It can't be good for the body.
It can't be good for the body.
It might explain the little problem your girlfriend was telling me about the other day.
One thing that's nice about America is federalism. And the idea is that you can choose a state that's right for you. And in that state you can pass all the goofball laws you like.
There are two problems with this, however:
1) Liberals won't acknowledge the fact that states exist, and so they try to push their insipid agenda on those of us who don't want it, rather than confining it to their own little liberal states.
2) When a state decides to outlaw the production of power, and then attempts to repeal the law of supply and demand, like California, it isn't willing to live with the consequences of its actions. No, it then demands that prices be capped so that other states will be forced to subsidize California's willful stupidity.
I have no problem with outlawing power in California, if that's what you want to do. But don't come crying to me about it when your lights go out.
Actually, the little Ayn Rand fantasy has some appeal to me also: The communitarian/cooperative thinking people get their own space free from the greedy exploitative competitive capitalists and the GECCs get no one to pick on but each other. The problem is that the GECCs tend to have guns and know how to use them, so eventually they'd come over to our side and take it from us.
Gee, we outlawed oil, and coal, and nuclear energy.
Sure is dark.
I wonder if these two events are related...?
Nah. It must be Texas' fault. They're "out to get us."
Although Texas, for some reason, doesn't seem to be "out to get" any of the twenty other states it exports power to-- It's just California. Oh, and energy companies from every other state (and Canada!) are out to "get" California, too.
Could it be that we actually need to produce power if we want to use power?
Nah. Must be a conspiracy of some sort.
And they know it, which is why they probably won't even try.
"The communitarian/cooperative thinking people get their own space free..."
Idiotic. You can "commune" and "cooperate" with bums that live within ten minutes of you.
You choose not to, because you prefer ownership. You don't want other people in your house, touching your stuff.
Communtarianism/cooperatives are an attractive idea -- in theory --for the same reason that two people getting together to write a book seems so terribly attractive to both people:
And that reason is, of course, because each assumes that the other will do all of the actual work.
Once someone actually has to do some WORK, one wants the fruits of his own labor. He doesn't want to share, EXCEPT with someone who does an equal amount of work and is willing to share the same amount.
Which is the same as a currency-exchange, except there's no filthy money to dirty the situation up.
But that's just an illusion. Money DOES exist in that situation; rather than keeping track of little green bills, you just keep track of the work each person is doing, and how much food/labor he kicks into the kitty.
When you only want to share with your productive equals -- as everyone does; no one wants to support other people, except for a spouse and children (and we all barely want to do that!) -- that's the same as a currency transaction with invisible money.
If I'm wrong, then I have a proposition:
I'll come and sleep on your couch for about a year or two. And I'll eat any food in your house. During this time I will "add to the cooperative" by writing a screenplay.
Sound good?
Stumbo:
Correct.
There's no point doing it unless 40 Senators are determined to ride the storm out.
I could live very happily if I never had to see another liberal for the rest of my life."
Boo-hoo. It's so sad that the GWB era is over after a mere five months. :)
I never expected Ace to quote from Das Kapital.
Until now, George W. Bush has looked — in this way as in so many — exceedingly lucky. With the expiration of the independent counsel law, and with Congress friendly territory, it looked as if he would be able to sail through his term with far fewer controversies and confrontations. Indeed, there has been only one high-profile investigation during the Bush presidency. The subject, naturally, was Bill Clinton.
I am going later to put flags on my dads and uncles graves...they were the Greatest Generation.
If he is, this is one of the most devastating accounts of that generation that I have seen by a member of that generation.
Thanks for the cite, Cellar.
The first thing Rich ever wrote was a review of the original production of "Follies."
Rich's piece is a little confused I think. He seems to have two theses: 1) The movie Pearl Harbor is part of a boom in all things WWII and that this may be "...overcompensation — big time — for what is missing in our national life: some cause larger than ourselves, whatever it might be. 2) That boomers are "...narcissists who want what they want when they want it and are convinced of their own righteousness. But attempts to conflate the two theses into one fail in that the target market for Ben Affleck/Pearl Harbor and the war as the ultimate extreme sport is not boomers but Gen-X/Y/Z.
In fact the boomer contribution to WWII cinema is Saving Private Ryan a film that has none of the defeciencies of Pearl Harbor.
His critique is as old as Livy, and about as insightful.
He loves to hate. The same reason my husband listens to Paul Harvey...
Paul Harvey???!!!!
Paul Harvey is about as benign as a koala.
Another internet first, brought to you by The Mote.
And that's the optimistic budget surplus only Bush seems to have believed in.
Oh well that's what happens when ideologues are in a position to railroad their bromide du jour.
Bright side, tax cut heavy hemmoraghe doesn't start for a while.
Plenty of tme for fiscal sanity...not to mention Social Security, Medicare, Education, NMD(!!!!), Bush's Great Military Leap Forward...
That's enuf for me. I am fed up with historical movies with screen plays from the Universal City Back Lot History Department or in this case from Fantasy Land.
Especially when the story is so damned exciting to begin with...even in high school history books.
So what's up?
"I want these generators in Texas and elsewhere to know that we are coming after them," Lockyer tells us. "And we're not talking about a 10-year fight to get our money back -- if we have the facts right, we're going to put them in prison."
Matier & Ross, SF Chronicle 5/27
Furthermore, it was unprecedented and applies to 50-50 situations. Independent Senators are traditionally counted with the caucus they choose - Harry Byrd - voted with the Democratic Caucus, had a committee chair, and was the most recent independent I believe.
I don't care if it's been around since the 70s; it sounds dumb.
Save it for my gas bill.
There isn't one premise that is sound, one statement with palpable connection to reality in this tantrum, this gas, this drivel, this buffoonery...
Alice in Wonderland meets George Babbitt and Bozo the Clown at Judge Judy's House?
Does Ace really think like this? Day by day, hour by hour, when he's alone in the everyday do his mental processes resemble this muddled mess?
The Responsive Communitarian Platform - The Communitarian Network
As a political and social theory there is much to fault communitarians for and some things to praise but hells fuckin bells at least know one principle, half of one before doin it!
Jesus. Pitiful
Thomas Donaldson (Georgetown University) Joseph Duffey (President, The American University) Thomas W. Dunfee (Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania) Stuart E. Eizenstat (Attorney, Washington, D.C.)James Hunter (University of Virginia) Nicholas deB. Katzenbach (Attorney, Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti, and former Attorney General of the United States)Lawrence J. Korb (The Brookings Institution) Frank Mankiewicz (Vice Chairman, Hill and Knowlton) Newton N. Minow (Former F.C.C. Chairman; Attorney, Chicago, Illinois)Michael Pertschuk (Co-Director, Advocacy Institute) Alice S. Rossi (Former President, American Sociological Association; Amherst, Massachusetts) William D. Ruckelshaus (Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Browning-Ferris Industries; Houston, Texas) George Rupp (President, Rice University) Isabel Sawhill (Senior Fellow, The Urban Institute) Kurt L. Schmoke (Mayor of Baltimore) Richard F. Schubert (President & CEO, Points of Light Foundation) Gillian Martin Sorensen (President, National Conference of Christians and Jews, Inc.) Thomas Spragens, Jr. (Duke University) Margaret O'Brien Steinfels (Editor, Commonweal) Adlai E. Stevenson (Chicago, Illinois) Peter L. Strauss (Columbia University) Daniel Yankelovich (President, Public Agenda Foundation) American Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities.
A Question of Responsibility
Although some of the responsibilities identified in this manifesto are expressed in legal terms, and the law does play a significant role not only in regulating society, but also in indicating which values it holds dear, our first and foremost purpose is to affirm the moral commitments of parents, young persons, neighbors, and citizens, to affirm the importance of the communities within which such commitments take shape and are transmitted from one generation to the next. This is not primarily a legal matter. On the contrary, when a community reaches the point at which these responsibilities are largely enforced by the powers of the state, it is in deep moral crisis. If communities are to function well, most members most of the time must discharge their responsibilities because they are committed to do so, not because they fear lawsuits, penalties, or jails. Nevertheless, the state and its agencies must take care not to harm the structures of civil society on which we all depend. ....
It has been argued by libertarians that responsibilities are a personal matter, that individuals are to judge which responsibilities they accept as theirs.
At least Ace made an intelligent choice on November 7th, high Moronic congruence! 
It's a great day to be an Irish American!
--Louisiana Senator John Breaux, concluding his cell-phone conversation with President George W. Bush, who called to thank the Democrat for his help in passing the budget resolution.
JAH: "Save it for my gas bill."
...dubya will be pleased to know the transfer payment scheme is working out so well...
Today's New York Times reports that Condo Rice has disclosed a major aid initiative to the Russians. A classic case of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, the proposal is evidently a bribe to get the Russians to go along with scrapping the ABM Treaty. The US will be offering massive military aid to the Russians, a continuation of the policies developed originally by Poppy and elaborated under Clinton. The plan includes a purchase of Russian SAMS and incorportating Russia into the NATO shield.
Kudos to the Klowns
Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska and a member of the foreign relations panel, said that in general, "the reality is the Democrats will control the committee agendas, so when you take an issue like missile defense where there are significant differences between the Democratic Senate leadership and the President, it changes the dynamics considerably." NYT
protects the right of individuals to own guns, a position that runs counter to most federal court rulings over the past half-century that the right is collective instead. Advocates on both sides of the gun control issue said Ashcroft's two-page letter marks a dramatic turnaround in the federal government's stance on firearms. Gun control advocates said they feared it would open the door to broad challenges of federal gun regulations, including the Brady Law."
Declared Kirsten Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, "The practical effect of what he's done with this letter is
to produce a 180-degree shift in policy on the Second Amendment. If Ashcroft's view prevails, the NRA will go back and challenge every
gun law on the books. It would be a massive shift in how federal gun laws might be implemented and enforced." - WPost 5/23
The NRA said they would move into the Oval Orifice and they well might.
However, in Constitutional law jurisprudence (in particular, equal protection cases), a "compelling state interest" is one that would justify, say, racial discrimination. It is rare that a court finds a "compelling state interest" to exist, so Ashcroft's footnote doesn't bring much comfort.
One example that comes to mind is the (apparent) First Amendment principle (most often cited in discussion of campaign finance reform) that each individual is entitled to as much expression as he or she can afford to buy. If First Amendment = Second Amendment, would it follow that each individual is entitled to possess an unlimited amount of guns and ammunition?
Another: If First = Second, since the First Amendment (generally) prevents law enforcement authorities from finding out what books Joe Smith bought at the bookstore, would the Second Amendment prevent finding out what weapons Joe bought at the gun show?
What is wrong with plain English? Tom Daschle just used the word(?) "incentivize"?
Because it's more politically correct than "a kick in the ass"?
Hardly. Rather than justifying racial discrimination, a more apropos and logical comparison would be limiting free speech--after all, the First Amendment is the example given, even by you. If the Supreme Court can make the classical conclusion that shouting fire in a crowded theater is unprotected speech, then I don't think the footnote is of little comfort at all. When it comes to firearms, it's a good bet Congress, state governments, and the courts will find many, many similar instances of compelling state interest based on public safety.
Gore "attack dogs" get another shot at Bush
So much for independence.
Gee, I dunno. Maybe Ace will show up and say, "Gosh, I had that all wrong."
Or maybe not.
If the Second Amendment were to be considered an individual Constitutional right on a par with First Amendment rights, there would be serious consequences for reasonable gun control.
It is on a par, and there should be serious consequences for "reasonable" gun control. I think it is possible to create laws that bound the right (equal to shouting fire in a theater, etc.). But that's what the argument should be about.
I believe the Independent part of the name refers to independence from the left. But, pray, for what were you banned?
Meanwhile the lovely Lucianne Godlberg has taken note of Sullivangate.
She's shocked, SHOCKED!!!
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed.
Reading this as ordinary English is pretty damn clear. Even if it were true that the original intent (kinda ironic to have lefies making an essentially original intent argument) was only to arm militia (which I doubt), the final clause is unambiguous. It doesn't say the right of members of state militia to have guns shall not be infringed. It says the right of the people shall not be infringed.
(Reading Presser vs Illinois , and some of the associated comment, it's also kinda funny to see the wingnuts making an argument that relies on minimizing states' rights. Nobody has any principles.)
Is that contradictory, though? One can say that states' rights are supreme in some matters and not others.
I agree about the Second Amendment. If people think the unfettered right to own a gun is anachronistic, then the solution is to repeal the Amendment. (dream on)
Good source on the gun argument.
(Why do I think JadeGold will be showing up soon?)
Why mention militia at all, then? The Bill of Rights is not exactly cluttered with extraneous language.
My view is that the constitution, up until the Civil War, restricted the Federal government from regulating citizen activity directly, leaving such regulation to the states. After the Civil War, the Federal government enforced these rights directly, even when states wanted to pass laws violating those rights. Hence, Roe v Wade protects the rights of pregnant female citizens from interference by a state in the first two trimesters. An identical argument says that the second amendment is a citizen's right to be enforced by the federal government.
And yes, of course, it's contradictory for the wingnuts to say state's rights on abortion and federal intervention on gun control. Just as it's wacked to say citizen right on abortion, but state regulation guns.
Precisely. I think the court screwed up by allowing any sort of regulation at all. Getting Gatling guns out of individual hands should have required a constitutional amendment.
As to this argument:
Second
Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have `some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of
a well regulated militia. (From US vs Miller)
it seems to me you can ban the sawed off shotgun, but cannot stop ownership of a tank by member of the state's national guard, or someone planning to be a member shortly.
On why it's there, it reflects a time when the weapons of war were the same as the weapons of self defense. It made no practical restriction on ownership, especially since militia were demobilized, keeping their (not the United States' nor the state of Maine's) weapons.
This was also in a climate where there weren't very many weapons in any case.
And yes, of course, it's contradictory for the wingnuts to say state's rights on abortion and federal intervention on gun control. Just as it's wacked to say citizen right on abortion, but state regulation guns.
Except, of course, for the trifling fact that the Constitution actually SAYS "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed," and yet doesn't mention abortion at all.*
*And it is worth noting, yet again, that at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, and the passage of all the Bill of rights, and for fifty years thereafter, abortion was illegal in every state and territory. So it's hard to quite understand how abortion was ever a protected right.
Not really, provided that the basis for the opinion is a belief that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned.
It is contradictory to say that it's a citizen right on abortion and state regulation on guns, because usually these people dismiss the Second Amendment's validity without calling for its repeal.
Jay, the liberal-fuck jackass, confuses "constitutional" with "the laws which I prefer."
See, Jay, a law can be "constitutional" and yet not a law you like. If "constitutional" means only "good public policy," then there is no difference between legislation and judicial law-making whatsoever, and it seems that we should dispense with the middlemen of Congress and the President, as the Court can make all laws and policies for us.
Yes, of course, it's contradictory for the wingnuts to say state's rights on abortion and federal intervention on gun control.
Only if one supposes states' rights are an all or nothing affair, rather than saying some powers and rights are delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, some to the states, others to the citizens.
If a state is violating a constitutional right of a citizen, then of course the federal government has the authority to step in--whether in abortion or gun control cases. The rub is whether an individual's constitutional right is being violated in each case, thus warranting intervention by a federal court. The two examples you give are certainly distinct enough to be able to argue differently for each without being self-contradictory.
I also doubt that he will say that, because he has no reason to.
The argument was about the precise terms of the January agreement. Ace repeatedly pointed out that in order to prevent a violation of those terms, the Republicans would need to stage a filibuster; and that the only likely consequence would be Jeffords dropping the "independent" schtick and officially joining the Dems -- an embarrassment for him, perhaps, but no real gain for the GOP.
Thus, the fact that they apparently decided not to do it can't possibly prove your claim that there was no violation to begin with.
cited in Griswold v Connecticut.
I do so enjoy the torture wingnuts put themselves through to justify massive intervention into citizens' lives when it suits them. It's almost as funny as FU characterizing a position in favor of reducing the size of government by reducing taxes and spending as liberal.
Um, Ace, that's your problem not mine. I like gun control laws. I don't think they are constitutional.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
If this protects abortion rights, why as abortion illegal throughout the United States for 100 years during/after the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Did no one notice, Jay?
How can that be? The federal government is preventing state intrusion into protected citizen activity in each case, defining a right to privacy as one of the unenumerated rights in the case of abortion, and recognizing the militia clause does not reverse the meaning the "shall not infringe."
No, Jay, the problem is yours. You claim it is some sort of "wingnut hypocrisy" to claim that the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution, and yet abortion is not.
It's not "hypocrisy" -- it's the fucking text of the Constitution, dipshit.
This is like claiming it to be "hypocritical" that someone claims the Federal Government has the power to stop tarrifs and levies between the states and yet has no power to legislate gun-free schools.
Again, dipshit, the Constitution specifically bars the states from enacting tarrifs and levies and doesn't mention gun-free school zones. So I don't quite see the "hypocrisy"; I see discrimination, yes, but discrimination based upon the simple fact that the Constitution actually elevates some issues to Constitutional imporatance (right to bear arms, no internal tarrifs) and does not so elevate others (abortion, gun-free school zones mandated by federal law).
That's the legal question/argument.
...defining a right to privacy as one of the unenumerated rights in the case of abortion, and
recognizing the militia clause does not reverse the meaning the "shall not infringe."
Sounds pretty distinct to me.
Can the Supreme Court "define" just any old "unenumerated right" it wants?
For the same reasons that blacks suffered inumerable rights violations for at least a hundred years after they were given full citizenship.
And, in fact, I don't believe you're right about being illegal for all that time. Let me root around a little bit.
Sure. That's what the text says.
"defining a right to privacy as one of the unenumerated rights in the case of abortion, "
If you want to claim the 9th Amendment protects abortion, why not also claim it protects prostitution, gambling, cockfighting, and dogfighting?
It mentions none of them at all; the same liberatarian arguments can be made in favor of all of them; and all were illegal for 100 years (or more) after the ratification of the Constitution.
The 9th Amendment is a dead amendment. No one tries reading anyting into it (except uneducated poseurs) for the simple reason that there there's no reason not to read *everything else* into it -- it proves too much, as they say.
Next, Jay will ask why "wingnuts" insist that the President be 35 years old and yet place no such stipulation on Representatives.
Again, Jay, for a simple "wingnut" reason: Because the Constitution mentions the first but not the second.
Is that too "wingnutty" for you?
Seems to me that gun free school zones infringes on the right to bear arms.
See, Ace, it's a conservative view that government should stay the hell out of people's lives as much as possible. It's an American "conservative" view that it should intervene whenever necessary to advance a particular policy position.
If you want to claim the 9th Amendment protects abortion, why not also claim it protects prostitution, gambling, cockfighting, and dogfighting?
I'm good with that. And the consumption of mind altering substances, too.
See, Ace, it's a conservative view that government should stay the hell out of people's lives as much as possible. It's an American "conservative" view that it should intervene whenever necessary to advance a particular policy position.
No, Jay. It's a "conservative" view that the actual democratically-elected representatives of government -- the actualy constitutional representatives of the people -- advance policy positions. And that the Court, which claims plenitpotentiary authority (in that it can strike down any act of Congress or the President), must, if democracy is to be preserved, refrain from judicial legislatation and only patrol for ACTUAL, EXPLICIT violations of the COnstitution.**
**And most real rights in the Constitution are political rights, rights which the citizens must have in order for democracy to function.
You will see no "right" in the Constitution to have cheap gas, or to have an unspoiled environment; for these questions are to be answered by democratic action, not by nine Judges receiving delphic inspiration from a 250 year old document (or, worse yet, from 20 year old "precedent").
"The Ninth Amendment was cited in Griswold, Ace."
As I recall, in a footnote, with little elaboration... i.e., a throwaway, a piece of shit thrown at the wall with dozens of other pieces in the hopes that it would stick.
"I'm good with that. And the consumption of mind altering substances, too. "
You're an idiot.
Good. I'll fight to have the Constitution read as imposing the death penalty for possession of narcotics.
You see the problem here, simpleton? You are turning every political contest into a constiutional one.
Which is fine. When you win. But what happens when you lose? Then you can no longer avail yourself of the normal avenues of democratic change, because such avenues have all been choked off by judicial action.
Except, of course, in the instance of disputed presidential election results in a particular state.
"Maybe Ace will show up and say, 'Gosh, I had that all wrong.'"
I'm still not sure if Ace was wrong, and if so, why. It's clear what "majority" means, and there is not a majority of Senators who are registered Democrats. Since the Republicans are acquiescing, I can only guess that something somewhere in Senate rules makes Senator Jeffords in effect a Democrat for majority-minority purposes.
The Constitution is all about process with a few scattered exceptions.
If the PROCESS works, then democracy will work, and we can have sound democratic action on the SUBSTANCE of any question.
If you want to start claiming that "the Constitution says this about drugs" and "says this about prostitution," what precisely is the difference between a government based on the Constitution and one based on the Bible?
In both cases, an old document is claimed to "clearly support" various policy positions by unelected "experts" who claim special knowledge of the One True Way to Govern; and in both cases, actual democracy -- you know, citizen pressure, legislation, boycotts, stuff like that that you are too lazy to dirty your hands with, prefering that a Judicial Theocracy make your world liberal for you -- is squelched.
Please explain the difference between a Council of Nine Priests interpreting the Bible, and issuing diktats for society, and nine judges doing the same with the Constitution.
There is one difference: We can expect/hope that the Nine Judges will be more liberal than the Nine Priests.
But is that all that matters? Is there no room for actual DEMOCRACY in liberalism anymore? Or can it only succeed, like a theocratic state, through undemocratic means?
However, all those arguments also apply to gun control. In fact, people can't own tanks because it would be silly to allow people to own tanks, even though the constitution states quite clearly that laws can't be passed infringing the right to bear arms. This is clearly legislating from the bench--allowing unconstitutional laws to stand because the alternative is unacceptable from a social perspective.
Likewise peyote and marijuana use, which would seem to be protected direction by the first amendment for at least some citizens has not overturned laws.
But the NRA argument does not carry the nuances that you've just presented, Ace, does it?
Well, yes. That's what I've been saying. He caucuses with the Dems.
They say the definition of a "fair deal" is a situation in which you would, with some indifference, change places with your trading partner.
So, if I offer to sell a baseball card for $50, and yet I would also buy the same card for $50, that's a fair deal.
Jay likes the idea of a nondemocratic institution -- whose membership does not/cannot change according to elections (judges serve for their lifetimes) - should settle all these questions for us. That will take care of business for, oh, sixty years or so. The "wingnuts" can never win on these issues for 60 years, because the courts would have barred any democratic action on these questions.
That sounds like a fair deal to Jay. Because he's only looking at it from HIS point of view.
Well, let's switch places a bit. Let's say I can get the Nine Old Men on the Court to declare abortion illegal -- not just unprotected, but flat-out illegal, in every state -- and their mandate will last as long as their terms do (for sixty or so years, let us say).
Sound fair now?
of course not.
Jay doesn't understand that political questions are -- get this --intended to be resolved in the political bodies, which are governed by rules (frequent popular elections guaranteeing rapid change-over should the representatives displease their constituents, no "precedent" barring repeal of bad laws, etc.) expressly crafted to make them democratically responsive and the best, most efficient place for the resolution of political questions.
This is the crux of the issue.
The Second Amendment was written at a time when people needed guns, not only for their livelihood and protection, but also to ensure that people could beat back a military invasion from England. The world has changed a lot in the last 200 years, and the value of a well armed population has gone from a good thing to a bad thing.
Unfortunately, the only remedy is to amend the Constitution.
Cal (Idiot),
Since I said six or fifteen times that I doubted the Republicans had the balls to demand what the resolution guarantees them, I don't see how their lack of balls proves that I'm wrong.
You're such a fucking dope.
It's like I say I could sue a guy for battery (because he punched me). And then I decide not to sue, because it would be hard to win (my word against his) and because the costs would be too great in relation to the relief sought.
And then Cal says: "See? There's no right to sue for battery. If there was, you would have sued."
"As I recall, in a footnote, with little elaboration... i.e., a throwaway, a piece of shit thrown at the wall with dozens of other pieces in the hopes that it would stick."
No. Justice Goldberg's concurrence was based primarily on the Ninth Amendment.
Well, actually, no. There are a hundred reasons why I might not sue: "there's no law against battery" is just one of them.
As usual, you make the dippy mistake of thinking IF A THEN B means IF NOT A THEN NOT B. It doesn't, Cal. Trust me.
If the REPUBLICANS FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE RESOLUTION 8, THEN that must mean THERE IS A RIGHT TO ENFORCE RESOLUTION 8.
Does that mean if they don't fight, there's no right?
No. Because if a, then b does not imply if not a, then not b. Neither does it imply if b, then a.
If a then b implies only one thing -- if not B, then not A.
"By the reasoning of 20641, then, the NRA is wrong in trying to overturn laws that have been "resolved in ... political bodies.""
What a dipshit.
The Constitution specifically elevates a dozen or so questions of political substance (Can State A impose a tax only on State B's communting drivers? Can State A impose goods sold to it from State B? Can a President be 35? Can I be tried for the same offense twice (double jeopardy)? Do I have the right to counsel at trial? ) to the constitutional level.
Sure. The NRA is wrong to bring up the Second Amendment in court. Just as criminal defense lawyers are "wrong" to agrue that their client can't be tried twice for the same crime.
Sure, Jay.
Good christ all mighty, you are stupid.
The Bill of Rights and other amendments to the Constitution recognize exceptions to this principle, such as where (1) the question involves something personal that is not the majority's business (e.g., what church to attend) or (2) the question consists of unfairly imposing the will of the majority on an outnumbered, possibly disliked, minority (e.g., a racial minority, or criminal defendants).
I don't see why weapons ownership is something that can't be fairly decided by the majority, so I think the Second Amendment should, ideally (although it'll of course never happen) be repealed.
However, the argument that the Second Amendment confers a personal right to "bear arms" is (unfortunately) a strong one.
Do you think it is a good thing that it is easier to get a gun than a driver's license? Do you think it is good that disaffected teenagers go on a homicidal rampage at a suburban high school every few months? Do you like the fact that US leads the world in hand gun murders?
Repealing the Second Amendment should not lead to the banning of all guns. It should only lead to reasonable limits on their design and use. Arguing that any repeal of the Second Amendment will lead to a complete ban on guns is intellectually dishonest.
Jay,
I'm terribly sorry that the Constitution only mentions a dozen or so questions of political substance (as opposed to process), and I'm sorry that they don't include the queerbait-libertarian idiocy you prefer.
But, you know, just because it mentions X, Y, and Z but not A, B, and C doesn't really give you the right to claim it covers A, B, and C, just because you (who no one elected, ever) like A, B, and C better than X, Y and Z.
See, Jay-- there's a process spelled out in the Constitution for changing its text. It's called "amending" the constitution. See, there's no provisions for "just making up some shit up because Jay Ackroyd knows his retarded agenda will never garner real political support." But there IS a provision for amending the Constitution.
I suggest you research this obscure provision rather than constantly whining that the Constitution really SHOULD say something about a right to use narcotics, and even if it doesn't, we should pretend that it does, because this was surely an oversight.
Yeah, right. One good thing after another happens because we let any jerk own any weapons, and as many weapons, as he wants.
McCain (as you probably know) was one of two Republican senators (the other being Chaffee) to vote against the tax cut. I voted for McCain in the primary, but am now convinced that he has no idea of how to deal. Still, that might make him a better President than Senator.
He must have delusions of another run, but he'll never get the Republican nomination now. And he's nuts if he thinks he can win the Democratic.
Not so long ago, you were arguing that those 9 Ancient Priests were doing just fine in settling an election. Was Florida vote-counting law at a constitutional level?
No principles.
Please demonstrate that they acknowledged they had the right and decided not to use it. There ought to be many reports on it--if not in the "liberal" media, surely in Fox or the Weekly Standard. If so, I agree that there is no proof that you are wrong.
But the complete lack of discussion of this option suggests that everyone, including Republicans, feel that the Dem caucus has the majority.
The Bill of Rights and other amendments to the Constitution recognize exceptions to this principle, such as where (1) the question involves something personal that is not the majority's business (e.g., what church to attend) or (2) the question consists of unfairly imposing the will of the majority on an outnumbered, possibly disliked, minority (e.g., a racial minority, or criminal defendants).
Yes. And that's the funny thing about "exceptions" --they are exceptional. Exceptional means "out of the norm" or "not per the typical rules."
See, when the Constitution says we have the right to counsel at trial, I don't advocate letting the majority decide -- because the Constitution has made that an "exception."
You see?
But the fact that the right-to-counsel is an exception does not mean that the-right-to-gamble is also an exception, or the right-to-conduct-cockfighting-tournaments is another exception.
Exceptions, as they say, prove the rule; the rule is not exceptions.
Hmm. Wouldn't the apt comparison be a gun versus a car, rather than a license? And driver's licenses are pretty easy to come by, too. Incidentally, I'm pretty sure more people are killed in this country each year by automobiles than by guns (by a wide margin).
1) Untrue. If you are talking about a legal handgun (depending on the jurisdiction).
2) No.
3) No.
Which doesn't change my position in the least.
I have not argued that repealing the second amendment would lead to a ban on all handguns. But now that you bring it up, I'm sure it would make it more difficult for citizens in many areas to protect themselves.
Already, about 20 percent of the public supports banning all handguns, so the slippery slope argument has its merits.
"Incidentally, I'm pretty sure more people are killed in this country each year by automobiles than by guns (by a wide margin)."
Not intentionally.
So are you arguing then, that anything that causes less deaths than an automobile should be unregulated?
I want to require a license for a person to own a gun. The only way to do that is by repealing the Second Amendment.
And I say that if you wanna be a strict constructionist, be one. And if you want to support a weak supreme court, then fine. But make up your mind. You can't say some amendments don't count while others do and hold either position.
"Already, about 20 percent of the public supports banning all handguns, so the slippery slope argument has its merits."
Are you saying that you'd rather have no regulation at all, then taking a chance on the 20% (your figure, not mine) who have an extreme position?
You are not suggesting that we currently have "no regulation at all," are you? We have plenty of regulation in places all over the country.
Jay
You're a moron. The 9th Amendment has simply never been interpreted by the COURT (by any court) as defining additional rights.
If you want to claim that the Ninth Amendment protects women's right to abortion, why can I not counterargue that YES, it protects a right reserved by the people, but the right it protects is the life of the unborn person inside the womb?
What textual support can you cite to prove your interpretaion is correct and yet mine is wrong?
Anytime you claim "The Ninth Amendment gives us X right," why cannot I claim "No, the Ninth Amendment gives us a right, yes, but not X; it gives us NOT-X"?
If you want to turn it into an elastic clause, promising anything you want it to, why can I not claim it as an elastic clause of my own?**
** And, again, abortions were illegal until the twentieth century, throughtout America, so if there's any historical support for one side or the other, it would seem to weight heavily on "protecting the fetus."
Gallup polls report widespread support for registration of all firearms, mandatory trigger locks, mandatory background checks for all purchases, and raising the age a gun can be bought to 21. There are other questions at the site.
Jay,
Does the Ninth Amendment protect citizens against being taxed at a rate higher than 30%?
If not, why not?
You're not the only idiot in the world who wants his prefered "rights" enacted by unreviewable, unrepealable judicial fiat. If you're lining up to claim the Ninth Amendment protects your favored rights, why not the favored rights (pro-fetus) of the Right to Life counsel, or the American Taxpayer's Union supposed right to sub-30% taxation?
I already cited Griswold. IAC, it's kinda circular to cite court cases in support of your argument.
If you want to claim that the Ninth Amendment protects women's right to abortion, why can I not counterargue that YES, it protects a right reserved by the people, but the right it protects is the life of the unborn person inside the womb?
Because the fetus isn't a citizen.
From Gunther, Constitutiona Law, Twelfth Edition (THE standard conlaw text in just about every law school), at pg. 503, note 2 (note it only deals with this as a footnote, because no one ever takes the ninth amendment "argument" seriously):
For a useful, critical overview of the voluminous history of the NintAmend ent, See McAfee "The Original Meaning of the Ninth Amendment," 90 Colum.L. Rev. 1215 (1990). McAfee concludes that "the affirmative rights reading of the ninth amdnement cannot be firmly established as its original meaning."
"The last time I looked, California was still part of the United States of America," Davis told reporters this weekend. "We have contributed disproportionately to the economic growth of this country. There's no reason why a president should not respond to a legitimate request from the chief executive of the largest state in the union."
DAVIS THREATENING SUIT
The governor has said he will consider suing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission -- the agency charged with overseeing energy prices -- if it does not impose temporary price caps.
And the state Legislature has already filed a suit, saying the commission has failed to stop what it has determined are "unjust and unreasonable prices."
With California's energy woes worsening and a summer of rolling blackouts predicted, the Bush-Davis session holds potentially deep political pitfalls for both leaders, both of whom are suffering in state polls as a result of their handling of the energy crisis.
Bush needs to demonstrate his concern for California, a state that gave a 12-point margin of victory to Al Gore in the presidential election.
But even as Bush adviser Karen Hughes told state reporters this week that the president had arrived to show he cares, Vice President Dick Cheney again chastised state officials for delaying their response to the energy crisis "because all of the action was potentially unpleasant."
And Cheney signaled that the administration would resist long-term price caps, saying, "We think that's a mistake."
Such talk drew fire from Davis' senior political adviser, Garry South, who charged that Cheney's words demonstrated insensitivity to California's troubles and only underscored the perception of an "all-oil, all-the-time ticket."
This abortion history reference confirms my recollection that abortion was made illegal in the mid to late 19th century:
In the mid 19th Century, a movement began to tighten abortion regulation. Spearheaded by the medical community, by the late 1860's this movement had succeeded in establishing uniform abortion prohibition in England and throughout most of the United States. Outside of necessity to preserve the life of the mother, abortion was prohibited. These laws, or similar successor provisions, would remain in place in all fifty states until the 1960's.
How was it discredited? The data reporting the degree of gun ownership was wrong?
I agree with you that the 2nd amendment unambiguously protects the right to own a gun.
You shouldn't read so selectively:
Henry Bracton, (1216-1272) "the Father of Common Law," apparently regarded abortion (at least after 5 or six weeks) as homicide and it seems that at early Common Law abortion was a felony, and, therefore, a hanging offense
If it's common law, you don't NEED a legislative law to cover it. There weren't legislative codes against murder until the nineteenth century, either; murders were all covered by common law.
Because the fetus is not a citizen. I don't see how an expanded set of rights could do any harm.
the American Taxpayer's Union supposed right to sub-30% taxation?
16th amendment takes that out.
The colonial minutemen brought their own weapons. State militias issued standard weapons and accouterments for ease of logistics, and because militiamen could not be counted upon to purchase and maintain their weapons.
Continuing...
Later commentators, Coke and Blackstone, held expressly that abortion after quickening was not the crime of murder, but a separate crime (a "grave misprision"). It is unclear whether pre-quickening abortion was still criminalized. The Miscarriage of Woman Act of 1803 ("Lord Ellenborough's Act," 43 Geo. 3, c. 58.), introduced a statutory abortion scheme in England. Pre-quickening abortion was made a felony and post-quickening abortion was a capital crime. In 1837, with abolition of the death penalty, 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict., c. 85. § 6, the quickening distinction was removed and all abortion was punished as a single felony. In 1861, the Offenses Against the Person Act, 24 & 25 Vict., c. 100, § 59, introduced a replacement statutory scheme, where, as before, all abortions were felonies. In 1929, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, 19 & 20 Geo. 5, c. 34, was passed. It supplemented the OAPA and included a defense for bona fide efforts to save the mother's life.
Wrong, Jay. At least in England, abortion was always illegal (except for life-of-the-mother) from the thirteenth through nineteenth centuries.
I find it rather difficult to believe the colonies -- English colonies, mind you -- made it their first order of business to repeal all those onerours English anti-abortion laws once they'd gained independence.
The state of the military art both here and in Europe in the 18th Century gave primacy of power to the musket, thus the need for the militia to preserve liberty. Within 50 years of its enactment the very preconditions of the amendment evaporated so too the 18th century concept of a militia.
Your argument is logically infirm and historically bogus
16th amendment takes that out.
No it doesn't, Jackass. The 16th Amendment creates the federal income tax; it does not delimit how much someone might be taxed, nor state that someone might be taxed as much as the states like (other Amendments, notably the Fifth, provide for protection of private property and are not repealed by any other amendment).
That doesn't fly. There are other phrases in the bill of rights that are no longer relevant. That doesn't take them out of the document.
In 1975, West Germany deemed that their own constitution made an abortion law unconstitutional.
The abortion law in question made it EASIER to seek an abortion; the West German Supreme Court (whatever it's called) deemed that their constitution protected "life," and ergo the life of the fetus.
So. We have a history of illegal abortions; we have West Germany, with a fairly similar Constitution (at least enumerating the same sort of broad rights) finding that the constitution actually protects the fetus, rather than the mother.
So: Precisely why should we say that our constitution -- a document which doesn't even MENTIOn abortion -- protects abortion rights, rather than the fetus?
How about we compromise and just admit it says NOTHING about EITHER?
See, Ace, this is one of the differences between being conservative and being what I call a wingnut--an American movement conservative.
You say that you don't want a policy regime where government intervention is limited as much as possible. You want a policy regime where the government can intervene when it wants to, except instances where you don't want the government intervening, like the ownership of guns.
I say that I'm willing to take the constitution at its face value, will accept stuff I don't like (limitations of the ability of the state to control guns, for example) because I find the principle of a broad set citizen rights more appealing than a principle that says the government can do whatever it pleases.
I can't find a principle underlying any of your arguments.
Stuff the Constitution says nothing about:
CAFE standards
Abortion
"the right to contract" (NOTE: liberatarian/conseravtive activists --real activists-- used the "right to contract" to strike down dozens of laws concerning child labor, minimum wage, maximum hours, prisoner-made goods, etc., in the 1930's)
gambling
liquor (it says nothing currently in effect)
prostitution
whether cats are smarter than dogs
maximum tax rates
health care policy
the designated hitter rule
etc.
As for the matter of legal interpretation of the Amendment, you can only arrive at your conclusion if you totally read out/ignore the precatory language in the amendment.
Because our constitution grants rights to citizens. Fetuses aren't citizens. You could amend the 14th amendment to make fetuses citizens, and the 13th, to make pregnant women an exception from the ban on slavery.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
Until you put unborn in there, you're out of luck.
Jay,
You don't see any principle because you're stupid.
Apparantly, you can't see the difference between an express command of the constitution and NO MENTION AT ALL. You believe, apparently, that we should treat something that IS mentioned in the Constitution the same as somethint which is NOT.
Why, I don't know. You just keep insisting, over and over, that gun-rights, which are mentioned, are inferior to (or at best equal to ) abortion rights, which are not mentioned. One would think the situation would be precisely the opposite.
You then resort to the Ninth Amendment, called "The Forgotten Amendment" because no one, anywhere, has ever claimed it meant anything than what it seems to, makes aboriton-rights the law of the land. You are unable, or at least unwilling, to explain why the Ninth Amendment -- even IF I concede it says anything about abortion at all, which it clearly does not --should weigh on the pro-choice side, rather than protecting the fetus.
There is no text to support you side; while there is no text to support my side, there is at least 100+ years of laws which made abortion illegal, a felony in fact, and none of the framers of the constitution (nor the citizens and representatives of the states which ratified it) thought the Constitution inconsistent with a ban on abortion. Quite the opposite, obviously -- they believe the Constitution heartily approved of such a ban.
And, with the righteousness of the uneducated and stupid, you then call those who don't quite swallow your theocratic diktats "wingnuts.
Well, suck my cock, dipshit. You're a fucking moron. have I mentioned that?
And will you EVER answer a difficult question?
I've asked you THREE FUCKING TIMES to explain why an amendment, which doesn't mention abortion at all, should be said to weigh on one side of the issue, rather than the other.
The Ninth Amendment speaks of "the people," not of "citizens."
This is such a stupid argument.
"It's unconstitutional because I say it is."
-- Jay Ackroyd, Moron, Constitutional Theorist
I said that the court recognizes a right to privacy, and referred to Griswold. This is of course consonant with the letter of the Constitution, because the Ninth Amendment says that the listing of rights is not exclusive.
It is also consonant with the spirit of the constitution, with its insistence on controls on search and seizure, use of homes as barracks, freedom of religion, and so forth.
You are unable, or at least unwilling, to explain why the Ninth Amendment ... should weigh on the pro-choice side, rather than protecting the fetus.
I have said three times that the fetus is not a citizen and so has no rights.
And will you EVER answer a difficult question?
Asked and answered. Three times.
I'm still waiting for you to answer the question I posed over a week ago: "Do you really believe that there was no concerted effort on the part of conservatives to bring down the Clinton administratio?"
By the way, Jay:
The ninth amendment says that the rights of the people NOT mentioned are not eliminated just because they're not mentioned.
Fair enough.
Where does it say that abortion is right? You PRESUPPOSE it is a non-enumerated right, still held by the people despite its non-mention.
I'll grant you, of course, that IF it were in fact a right, the Ninth Amendment WOULD say it still existed, and did not disappear merely because it was unenumerated.
But again, this assumes, from the outset, that it is/was a "right."
Where is such a right mentioned anywhere?
The Ninth Amendment means that IF I have a right to fuck mallards up the ass, that right is not extinguished merely because the Constitution does not specify it; but yet that does not prove I have the right to anal sex with ducks in the first place.
So. Where's the proof?
"I have said three times that the fetus is not a citizen and so has no rights.
"
The Ninth Amendment speaks of PEOPLE, dipshit, as I told you.
"Do you really believe that there was no concerted effort on the part of conservatives to bring down the Clinton administratio?"
Answered once when originally asked; answered again when you asked it again. Go check back on Thursday/Friday for the answer, douchebag. The answer is still there, and the answer has not changed. Nor is it likely to change.
ROFL.
Jay,
Does the Ninth Amendment mean I have a right to fuck mallards up the ass?
After all, not all rights are specified. Ergo, I must have the right to fuck a duck. Right?
Or wrong?
You are so, so stupid. You have taken the statement:
It is possible that it is raining
to mean:
It is raining.
"The Ninth Amendment speaks of "the people," not of "citizens." "
They're different, Genius.
No, I don't presuppose anything. In Griswold, the court ruled that there is a right to privacy for your to do with mallards whatever you wish, and the state does not have the power to intrude on that actitity. That fits both the letter and the spirit of the constitution.
I'll look back for your answer to that other question.
Apparently, however, it does say something about being able to ride a cart while playing golf in PGA tournament.
Jay,
Roe v. Wade can be easily rewritten to state that the "right to life" mentioned in the Dec. of Independence, and incorporated by reference into the Constitution (the spirit of our country, you know), is conferred upon a fetus by the Ninth Amendment.
Or even the "right to privacy"... the right to privacy (and safety) in the womb.
You keep citing the "let's make some shit up and claim it's the 'law'" cases of Griswold and Roe prove something. They don't. They are what conservatives mean when they talk about judicial activism.
This decision should come as no surprise.
- Tom Daschle (D), in 1995 when Senator Ben Campbell switched from Democrat to Republican.
Ace: Where is this "right to privacy" mentioned?
Jay: In the constitution.
Ace: No, the Warren Court invented it. Where is it-- in the constitution?
Jay: In the Ninth amendment.
Ace: The Ninth Amendment says that IF something is a right, it is not extinguished simply because it is not mentioned. But where is the right to privacy, or an abortion, mentioned in the constitution?
Jay: Griswold v. Connecticut.
Ace: That's not the constiution.
Jay: Griswold v. Connecticut makes reference to the Ninth Amendment in a concurring opinion.
Ace: Haven't we been here before? Isn't this deja vu all over again? The Ninth Amendment says IF something is a right, it remains a right; but for the ninth amendment to apply, you first have to prove that your "right" is in fact a right. Where is this "right" mentioned?
Jay: In Griswold v. COnnecticut.
Ace: That's not the COnstitution.
Jay: It mentions the Ninth Amendment.
Ace: THIRD BASE!!!
Are you suddenly arguing that the Constitution provides rights to noncitizens?
Does this mean that an illegal alien child can sue for the right to healthcare? Does a suspected terrorist alien have the same criminal safeguards as a citizen?
Ace, I always had you pegged for a conservative on this issue.
Ace: Why does the Constitution protect mothers seeking an abortion, rather than a baby seeking life? Where does the Constitution state that one interest is superior to the other?
Jay: It protects "citizens." Unborn babies are not "citizens."
Ace: Well, it protects "The People." Illegal immigrants are not citizens, but the Constitution protects them as it protects citizens. The Constitution protects corporations, which are citizens but not persons.
Jay: The fourteenth amendment says "citizens."
Ace: The fourteenth amendment is irrelevant, and is not under discussion. The ninth amendment speaks of "people."
Jay: Babies are not "people."
Ace: Says who?
Jay: Griswold v. Connecticut.
Ace: Citing what?
Jay: The ninth amendment.
ALL TOGETHER NOW: THIRD BASE!!!
I already answered this, Dickhead. I will answer again: Yes, there was a "concerted effort" to drive him out of office when he was revealed to have committed multiple felonies in office (plus dozens of felonies we know he did, but could never prove, do to contempunacious witnesses and mysteriously disappearing records).
Hmmm. At the time you said that you wanted Clinton out of office because he committed perjury. I thought that sounded at best, naive. So now you say he committed lots of other felonies, even though formal investigation after investigation revealed none. And you cite unenuerated felonies to boot. Hmmm. Consistency. Hobgoblins.
"Illegal immigrants are not citizens, but the Constitution protects them as it protects citizens.
Illegal aliens have the same rights as citizens?
Fielding,
You're an idiot, too. The constitution clearly protects noncitizens... in some instances.
Noncitizens do not have the right to vote; they cannot sue for that right. They cannot sue for many benefits of being a citizen, just as fit and healthy 35 year old cannot sue for Social Security. You have to be 65 (or prematurely sick) for SS; healthy 35 year olds have no right to SS. And noncitizens cannot vote. Nor can they be elected to office.
"Illegal aliens have the same rights as citizens? "
They have most (if not all) of the same criminal rights, for instance, though they can be deported for various reasons. And one of those "various reasons" would be that they are breaking the law by being here.
And the SC has found, strangely, that they are entitled to have their non-citizen children educated here by taxpayer funded public education.
"Noncitizens do not have the right to vote; they cannot sue for that right. They cannot sue for many benefits of being a citizen, just as fit and healthy 35 year old cannot sue for Social Security. You have to be 65 (or prematurely sick) for SS; healthy 35 year olds have no right to SS. And noncitizens cannot vote. Nor can they be elected to office."
Interesting. Just a few posts ago you said "the Constitution protects them as it protects citizens."
And you call me an idiot?
The Civil War and the 14th amendment changed those rules. States were no longer the agency in charge of citizen's rights. The effect of the 14th amendment was to make the Federal government the agency in charge of preventing infringement of citizens' rights by the state.
Actually, it just occurred to me: JayAsshole is wrong, as usual.
The Fourteenth Amendment speaks of granting PERSONS due process and equal protection of the law. that's the incorporation clause, and that applies to persons (including corporations), NOT citizens.
The citizenship clause is just that -- a citizenship clause. But the Fourteenth Amendment's protections actually speak to a larger group of people -- PERSONS.
Jay,
This is the second time in an hour you've selectively quoted. Are we to believe it's accidental?
Fielding,
You're an ass. Fine. Then I should get AFDC benefits, despite the fact that I have no children.
See, Genius, the Constitution does not require that I get benefits for dependent children if I have no dependent chilren. Nor can I get SS, being only 32, nor can I get a piece of the railroad worker's pension, being neither a railroad worker or pensioner.
You might not like this, but when people ARE different in a relevant aspect, they CAN be treated differently. So, no, noncitizens cannot become the President or Congressmen; nor can they vote. The Constitution protects them as PEOPLE; but they do not have all the priviledges of citizenship, and the constitution does not demand they be granted such.
There I go again, reading the thing as written.
But the Fourteenth Amendment's protections actually speak to a larger group of people -- PERSONS.
And there goes Ace again. "It's not about people, it's about PERSONS."
Dipshit:
SECTION 1. ...nor shall an state deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON with its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
There you go again, Moron. Care to admit your error now?
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"
And here's all of section one.
And, in fact, Ace has an argument he hasn't made yet. Just as it's murder to kill a resident alien, or even an illegal alien, if a fetus were a person, it wouldn't matter whether it were a citizen. So the relevant amendment is not to define a fetus as a citizen, but as a person.
Of course, you'd still have to make that amendment.
"You're an ass. Fine. Then I should get AFDC benefits, despite the fact that I have no children."
What does this have to with your taking opposite positions a few posts apart?
Let me repeat them, just in case you forgot:
"Noncitizens do not have the right to vote; they cannot sue for that right. They cannot sue for many benefits of being a citizen, just as fit and healthy 35 year old cannot sue for Social Security. You have to be 65 (or prematurely sick) for SS; healthy 35 year olds have no right to SS. And noncitizens cannot vote. Nor can they be elected to office."
"the Constitution protects them as it protects citizens."
By the way, dipshit, it is the incorporation clause -- the clause I just quoted -- which, it is claimed, incorporates the bill of rights and makes them applicable to the states and enforceable on the states by the federal government.
In other words, that's your "federal government is the agency charged with protecting rights" argument.
And that clause --which is the most important clause in the fourteenth amendment -- speaks of PERSONS, not citizens.
Again, asshole, the citizenship clause merely makes it clear that blacks are now citizens, if they were born here. It is irrelevant except as to post-civil-war slaves and to noncitizens who give birth in America (their kids become citizens).
And I've said, three times now, that just as the Constitution PROTECTS me while it "discriminates" against me (no SS, no AFDC payments), so to does it PROTECT illegal aliens -- in all relevant ways -- while "discriminating" against them for not being citizens.
If I am denied AFDC payments, is the constitution not "protecting me as it protects citizens"? No-- government is allowed to make distinctions between people, so long as that distinction is relevant and fair. And the Constitution still protects noncitizens -- in most aspects -- but does, yes, allow them to be denied the right to vote. The same as I am denied "rights" which I am not eligible for.
I can only say it three times. That's it. if you're still too stupid to get it -- or, more likely, if you "get it" but you are merely attempting to harass with idiotic objections -- then that's your problem, not mine.
Let me guess, you probably think that 14-year-old kid who shot his teacher got too harsh of a sentence because he is too young and full of potential.
Jay,
I don't need to prove that abortion should be made illegal. I don't want it made illegal. I actually want it kept legal.
Thus, I do not want an amendment saying that unborn babies are not "persons." Nor do I need one for the purposes of my argument.
You are claiming that *I* need actual, textual, affirmative constitutional support for what you assume is my position, and thus you postulate that I *NEED* the Constitution to say: Oh, and by the way, in case there's any confusion, fetuses are persons.
Which is an odd position. Because you claim that the Constitution says what you want it to say, without a SHRED of textual support. But when I couter-argue, you claim: "Oh, you can't claim it means that... you have not textual support; you need an AMENDMENT for it to say what you want it to say."
Well, I couldn't have said it better myself: When the Constitution doesn't say what you want it to say, you need an AMENDMENT to make it say what you want it to say. Not "Griswold v. Connecticut" (not an amendment, by the way) and not the Ninth Amendment, which speaks only to "rights" reserved by the people, and you still haven't established the right to abortion or privacy is a right at all. IF they are rights, then yes, the Ninth Amendment says they continue to be rights. But first you have to establish the predicate.
My argument is that YOU have not text, no real constitutional support, for your position. I do not have to "prove" my side (that abortion should be illegal); because I don't believe abortion should be illegal, and I don't believe the Constitution demands it be illegal. I think the constitution is silent on the subject... which, of course, it indisputably is.
But I do enjoy the suggestion that while you are free to invent fanciful interpretations of vague words, I *NEED* clear textual authority for my position to carry.
I also enjoy JayMoron's strident "Well, it's a constitutional right because seven Justices said it is" argument.
He actually expects this to carry water.
Oh, and I'm SUUUUUUUURE that if RvW were overturned within the year (six justices denying such a fanciful "right" exists), then Jay would just say: "Well, that's what the Justices ruled. That must be the law."
Since Jay would not give any deference to the Court ruling the other way on this issue, I find it absurd that he continually demands deference to the learned liberals who voted in his favor in 1972.
"Griswold v. Connecticut says it's constitutional!"
Well, Jay, in a year or two we might have Stanley v. Michigan Reproductive services saying it's unconstitutional.
So knock it off with the childish appeal-to-authorities.
You said that the Constitution protects illegal aliens as it protects its own citizens. You later say (correctly) that it doesn't. Bringing up your ADHD or whatever doesn't change anything. Just admit that you overstated the point and move on.
Fielding,
The government discriminates against me, in the sense it does not give me ADFC while it gives it to other people.
Am I "not protected as other citizes"?
Yes? Or no?
In other words:
Does the fact that the government "discriminates" against me based on a rational, reasonable, and fair distinction in my legal/age/gender/marital/parental status mean that it does not "protect" me?
Or is the right way to say it: "It protects me, the same as it protects all persons in the country; but, of course, protection does not mean it need be blind to distinctions between persons, and it can discriminate between some persons on rational, reasonable, and fair grounds while it nevertheless 'protects' me as every other person."
If a noncitizen is "not protected by the Constitution" merely because he cannot vote and cannot be elected to office, then *I* am not "protected by the Constitution" because I am denied SS and AFDC payments.
True, there's a good reason why I am denied such payments. Namely, because I do not qualify for such payments, being younger than 65 and having no children.
But then, there's a good reason why a noncitizen cannot vote or be elected to office or be issued a US passport, too. Namely, because he does not qualify for such things, being that he's not a citizen.
I'm not going to defend your statement. You said that "the Constitution protects them as it protects citizens." This is a stretch, even if you suffer from ADD. :)
Fielding,
Answer the questions.
"I'm not going to defend your statement."
TRANSLATION: I'm pinned, I give, I cry Uncle, but I'm unwilling to actually say so, so I'll just claim victory and move on.
Legal and illegal aliens have:
All criminal-defendant rights.
All rights to access to the judiciary.
All economic rights (assuming a legal alien, or a foreigner legally here on business).
Many (though not all) rights to the Welfare Nanny State, including, strangely, taxpayer-paid education for illegal-alien children of illegal-alien parents who do not pay taxes.
Many of the more important political rights (free speech, etc.)
What rights don't they have?
-- Can't vote. (HAH!)
-- Can't run for public office.
-- Can't donate to a political campaign, unless it's a Democrat.
-- Can't receive many of the Nanny-State payments based on individual taxpayer payments.
And on this basis, Fielding claims: Oh, these poor noncitizens. They're not "protected" by the Constitution. They don't get SS (of course, they really don't pay into SS, either). They can't vote (unless in a Democratic precinct)!
Whatever, Fielding.
I mean, are you claiming that noncitizens SHOULD have the right to vote, or the right to be elected to public office, or the right to SS payments --despite the trifling fact that they're not, in fact, citizens?
If not, then they're being treated properly. Differently in some relevant respects, but in all other respects the same as a citizen.
But comes the Fielding whine: "They're not protected by the Constitution."
In other words, to be "protected," a noncitizen would have to be granted the right to vote.
An interesting definition of "protection."
I am not pinned. I have said nothing that needs defense.
You said that "the Constitution protects them as it protects citizens". You said it to try to convince Jay that a fetus should have the same rights as a citizen.
But what you really believe is "the Constitution protects illegal aliens somewhat, but not as much as it protects citizens."
Its not the first or last time that someone around here stretched a position to help with an argument about something else. Its really not that big a deal.
Just own up to it. You'll feel much better afterwards.
"And on this basis, Fielding claims: Oh, these poor noncitizens. They're not "protected" by the Constitution. They don't get SS (of course, they really don't pay into SS, either). They can't vote (unless in a Democratic precinct)!"
You silly boy. I have taken no position on either side of this issue.
Boy I missed an entire day of psychotic piffle!
Piss Poor Piffel at that!
hehehe
First The Thrilla in Manila, now the Laugher in LA!
President Bush spent about the same amount of time he spends jogging in the morning with the governor Tuesday SF GATE.com
Well...looks like it's back to the "home" for ol' jex.
Fuckin A!
I am so happy I could shit!
Governor Davis is threatening to sue if the President doesn't impose price caps. I say, if the Governor wants to do stupid things, give him the tools to do it.
In the present situation, the Governor can claim that the President is being obstructionist, and some yahoos will fall for it. Let the Governor have the power to put a price cap on electricity, and then when it fails to fix the crisis (as no one in their right mind expects), the Governor will have to find some other goat to scape.
Why on earth should CA build power plants? After all, they created Pearl Harbor. We should be so grateful we should pay them for the chance to give them electricity to keep their air conditioners running.
Anything that could potentially harm interstate commerce, or touches it is subject to federal pre-emption under the Commerce Clause: since a little case in NY called Gibbons v Ogden in 1824.
Price fixing of energy falls within the control of the federal government because even if it's intrastate in its focus, it can significantly impact interstate supply.
MsIvoryTower
Thanks for the explanation. For some reason, I had the vague impression that it was the result of the so-called regulation plan. As I understand your post, the locus of this power has nothing to do with that bill, or even with California, it is Constitutional in nature. Do I have that (approximately) right.
Lest anyone choose to throw my words back at me later, I'm not seriously suggesting that a Governor should have or exercise the authority to impose price caps. It is an inherently stupid idea. I'm just getting tired of the whining by the Governor of CA, trying to leave the impression that, but for the President's intransigence this problem could be solved.
I also note that we don't see too many commentators pointing out that Bush's position is the same as Clinton's. Did Davis threaten to sue Clinton?
Congress couldn't have passed legislation that regulates utilities (or anything) unless it had the constitutional power to do so. So yes.
Price fixing is generally a bad idea. We knew this, but learned the lesson well under Nixon. Presidents since then have resisted attempts to co-opt the federal government into capping energy (oil) prices.
Davis apparently believes that because he has shot off his foot everyone else should too. Of course he has little to lose by pursuing such a blame game.
Not very attractive legs, but legs nonetheless.
As I understand it, one of the reasons California is in this fix is because they had price caps on what consumers could be charged so utilities were squeezed between wholesale power suppliers (who had no such price caps) and the consumer.
Well, then, you don't understand it. The reason California is in the fix is because of the price gouging and supply manipulation. The caps would not have changed that in the slightest. Removing the caps would only allow the utility companies to pass on the cost of the gouging to the consumer. San Diego is a demonstration of what that looks like, since their price caps have been removed. Minimum electric bills--and we're talking no airconditioners, no PCs, and the like--are in the hundreds of dollars. Reduction of anything other than an electric light every third day might drop the cost a few dozen bucks.
And let me reiterate once more that the price caps were a condition set by the utility companies, who wanted to guarantee themselves profits for several years. At the time they demanded the price freezes, they also agreed that it might turn about and hurt them if prices went up. They then reneged.
New York Times:
The blackouts, lasting up to two hours each and the first to occur in some 140 cities in Southern California, were the latest fallout from the state's ill-fated experiment with the partial deregulation of its electricity market, which let wholesale prices float while capping retail rates.
That has left the state's two major investor-owned utilities on the verge of bankruptcy and unable to pay suppliers, including smaller generators that use natural gas or solar power, wind and wood waste products to generate more than a quarter of the total daily electricity needs of some 30,000 megawatts, or enough to power roughly 30 million households.
As a result, in recent weeks, the small generators themselves have been unable to buy fuel and have shut down about half their capacity, or 3,100 megawatts, officials said, while a bill to help them remains stalled in the State Legislature.
At the same time, plants that have been operating without a break for months have been taken out of operation for maintenance or repairs, reducing supplies by an additional 12,000 megawatts...
"I reject the irresponsible notion that we can afford to allow our major utilities to go bankrupt," he said. "Our fate is tied to their fate."
The power utilities have been caught in a dangerous vise as they pay soaring prices for power on the wholesale market but can charge consumers far less than their costs because of state price caps.
The utilities have said that they have lost more than $11 billion already because of this situation, and that the gap will drive them into bankruptcy if they do not receive some government relief.
The fact that utility companies can't pay their bills is not the real problem, either. It is why they can't pay their bills. If they were able to pass the price onto consumers, do you think the consumers would be ponying up? Hardly. I don't know what the non-payment rate is in San Diego, but last I heard it was pretty substantial.
If the consumers didn't cover their utility bills, then the utility companies would still be unable to pay their suppliers. (Keep in mind, of course, that some of their "suppliers" are in fact a different subsidiary of the same parent company and have made a fortune off this problem.)
So the real issue is still the price gouging and supply manipulation.
Can't help but wonder what's happenin' to my companions,
Are they lost or are they found, have they counted the cost it'll take to bring
down
All their earthly principles they're gonna have to abandon?
There's a slow, slow train comin' up around the bend.
I had a woman down in Alabama,
She was a backwoods girl, but she sure was realistic,
She said, "Boy, without a doubt, have to quit your mess and straighten out,
You could die down here, be just another accident statistic."
There's a slow, slow train comin' up around the bend.
All that foreign oil controlling American soil,
Look around you, it's just bound to make you embarrassed.
Sheiks walkin' around like kings, wearing fancy jewels and nose rings,
Deciding America's future from Amsterdam and to Paris
And there's a slow, slow train comin' up around the bend.
Man's ego is inflated, his laws are outdated, they don't apply no more,
You can't rely no more to be standin' around waitin'
In the home of the brave, Jefferson turnin' over in his grave,
Fools glorifying themselves, trying to manipulate Satan
And there's a slow, slow train comin' up around the bend.
Masters of the bluff and masters of the proposition
But the enemy I see wears a cloak of decency,
All non-believers and men stealers talkin' in the name of religion
And there's a slow, slow train comin' up around the bend.
People starving and thirsting, grain elevators are bursting
Oh, you know it costs more to store the food than it do to give it.
They say lose your inhibitions, follow your own ambitions,
They talk about a life of brotherly love, show me someone who knows how to
live it. There's a slow, slow train comin' up around the bend.
Well, my baby went to Illinois with some bad-talkin' boy she could destroy
A real suicide case, but there was nothin' I could do to stop it,
I don't care about economy, I don't care about astronomy
But it sure do bother me to see my loved ones turning into puppets,
There's a slow, slow train comin' up around the bend.
Davis Fucks A Moron - Matier & Ross (SF Chron)
He looks evil, he sounds evil. And he's running out of juice.
Even some Republicans were taken aback by the Bush team's apparent lack of political thinking in the sit-down with Davis.
"The meeting never should have happened in the first place," said former U. S. Secretary of Energy (and former state GOP chairman) John Herrington.
In Herrington's view, it was clear from the start that Davis was "just going to use the meeting to kick the stuffing out of the president."
So what's the big deal paying extra for electrical energy from other states. If you don't like the prices, build your own.
It's not going to work blaming Bush for your shortsightedness.
"I'm going to pursue every recourse available to me to force Hollywood to order rebates to consumers or a lowering of its prices."
(Apparently hot air can't be converted to electricity.)
Certainly DC does generate lots of hot air, and Georgetown recently wanted to start its own energy plant for the community.
"The three states shown in orange [Maryland, Delaware, and New York] and the District of Columbia are in only slightly better shape than California. They import significant quantities of electricity. . . ."
Meanwhile, a group of economists--among them aides to former President Reagan and to Bush's father--sent Bush a letter opposing price caps, countering another letter from economists delivered by Davis supporting temporary steps to stabilize California's electricity market.
"Not a matter of philosophy, not a matter of ideology...."
27 Billion in 2000
End of story.
Corruption by any other name...
The Bush-Cheney notion that each state must generate all of its citizens' needs in every area, and may not rely on free and fair trade from other states...
Link?
Expect to see and hear even more of this.
Watch MamaB bring her teenage daughter back to the White House as punishment.
I suppose those meanies in Texas just haven't gotten around to it yet.
However, while it may have been stupid of the regulators to create an opportunity to rig the market, that doesn't mean they aren't rigging the market.
Or perhaps they're only going after states with Democrat governors who have presidential aspirations. Under direct orders from the evil cabal in the White House, of course.
You are no doubt correct in suggesting that California handed incentives to raise prices on a silver platter. But whether raising prices equates with price gouging is another matter.
I don't know whether anyone has investigated the Pennsylvania market.....but what have you to say about the price manipulations of the California market?
Apparently NOTHING
See Message # 20770.
"Selling off the utilities' gas- and oil-fired power plants was key to deregulation. The idea was to make sure there were so many new power plant owners that none could single-handedly influence the price of electricity in California's new marketplace.
"But the statewide auctioning of power plants backfired. Private energy companies from all over the country engaged in bidding wars and paid higher-than-expected prices--a sign of how profitable new players figured the California market might be.
"A partnership of Houston-based Dynegy and Minneapolis-based NRG Energy bought the Carlsbad package. Seven other energy companies, all but one based out of state, purchased the utilities' mainstays, including plants at Morro Bay, Long Beach, El Segundo and Huntington Beach.
"The buyers spent more than $3 billion to take title to power plants critical to California's trillion-dollar economy.
"No other state, in attempting to deregulate, did what California did: triggered a sweeping divestiture without making certain that the new owners would have to sell their electricity at a fixed price for a number of years, said [Severin] Borenstein, the Berkeley economist."
Small wonder Ronski wishes to talk about Pennsylvania!
For in fact he doesn't want to complain having along with Cheney publically expressed the view that energy prices SHOULD be higher.
Now why, you ask, did they say that?
Why you ask have they not acted to restrain energy prices?
Why does Ronski palaver so?
Because Ronski is lost in a libertarian fantasy world of "free markets"... his brain cannot fathom reality.
So he talks about Pennsylvania of course
Redress!
"The dramatic increases are the result of critical misjudgments by the California Public Utilities Commission and the state Legislature, the two main architects of the plan to open the market."
But what about the demon Texans?
I agree. And I think it's an open question whether facilities were taken off line to restrict supply, and whether natural gas was routed to create local shortages in California. The offline chart jexster posted some time ago seemed to support the notion that there was supply manipulation by the electricity suppliers.
The article from the Dallas Fed that Ohio posted is a pretty even handed analysis. And it does leave the bulk of the blame at the door of regulators who wanted low prices with no increases in supply, and no market mechanisms to encourage reductions in demand.
I agree. And I think it's an open question whether facilities were taken off line to restrict supply, and whether natural gas was routed to create local shortages in California. The offline chart jexster posted some time ago seemed to support the notion that there was supply manipulation by the electricity suppliers.
The article from the Dallas Fed that Ohio posted is a pretty even handed analysis. And it does leave the bulk of the blame at the door of regulators who wanted low prices with no increases in supply, and no market mechanisms to encourage reductions in demand.
I completing understand the need to obfuscate then talk about Pennsylvania Ronsk. I assure you I do.
I do think the most compelling story is that the suppliers are tacitly colluding. But the regulators should have made that impossible. They didn't.
How should the regulators have done this?
I have no idea at this point whether suppliers have committed some kind of fraud, but I kind of doubt it. We'll find out eventually.
And remember the charges of price gouging at the gas pumps? Didn't happen, according the FTC.
"It will only cost your trade group $5,000 to join the steering committee of the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth, the four-week-old corporate coalition formed by national energy industries to lobby for a national energy plan. "In my view, $5,000 is a very low price to join," Republican lobbyist Wayne Valis wrote in a May 21 fundraising memo.
But according to Valis, there will be one condition to your membership.
You'll be supporting one national energy plan in particular. Or else."
Big Energy Trade Groups in Lock Step
Or perhaps
Welcome to the hotel California, such a lovely place...you can check out but you can never leave....
Huh?
1. Permitted construction of instate facilities.
2. Permitted different contract lengths.
3. Intervened if the purchasers of existing suppliers were too concentrated
4. Let the retail price float
5. (This is controversial.) Found ways to encourage micro generation, like fuel cell generators, wind and solar. The same 10 billion dollars that got shipped off to Texas would have bought a lot of solar panels. The low cost producers (nukes, coal and oil) are pretty heavily subsidized, especially nukes. A smaller subsidy toward microproduction--focused, say, on the Valley and other 5 Nine kind of facilities--would have helped keep the price down at the peaks, and deterred manipulation.
Again...
Why does Ronski palaver so?
Because Ronski is lost in a libertarian fantasy world of "free markets" ... his brain cannot fathom reality.
Veiled assertion?
I think not.
You might want to argue that politically powerful utilities often capture regulatory agencies and prevent free markets from coming into play. That's what's happening here in New York, and we are identified in the Dallas Fed report that Ohio posted as at risk.
That's what I think happened in California. Politically, they thought they had to cap the retail price, but politically, they couldn't cap the wholesale price. Result: massive margins for low cost producers.
a billion dollars used to subsidize it down to $750 would put crimp in the ability of oligopolists to collude. And, while this is high-priced production, it's at it's maximum during peak demand periods.
Do I detect a pattern here?
The Morons have concocted an energy crisis that does not exist to pass legislation whose only beneficiaries will be big energy producers....
They've concocted an economic crisis to justify the "Throw Mama From the Train Tax Act 2001" Message # 20802
On the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia, PENNSYLVANIA too!
What bullshit will they feed us next?
I agrew with 1, 2, and 4. Unsure about 3. Disagree about 5 (though if it bought some political peace from environmentalists it might be worth the cost).
By the way, all the Kalifornia Dreamers take "price-gouging" to mean "Price-fixing."
The words don't mean the same thing, although various leftist propagandists use the term "price-gouging" in such a way to suggest it means "price-fixing." They trust the morons capable of being persuaded by their propaganda are too stupid to know the difference; and, of course, on that score, they're right.
Reliant clients to pay for cleanup...
Provision transfers costs of smog plan...
The Chronicle: Houstonians and other Reliant Energy customers would pay $16 million to help oil and gas companies reduce smog-forming emissions from pipeline equipment under a complicated, last-minute provision in a bill passed during the waning days of the Texas Legislature.
State Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston, who failed to win an accelerated rate rebate for Reliant customers, on Tuesday criticized the cost-recovery provision and encouraged Gov. Rick Perry to consider vetoing the bill. He charged that Reliant ratepayers, who are scheduled to receive a rebate in 2004, risk not "getting a dime" if the bill becomes law.
STATEMENT OF JENNA AND BARBARA BUSH INCIDENT
At approximately 10:19 P.M. on Tuesday, May 29th, the Austin Police Department received a 9-1-1 call reporting minors attempting to purchase alcohol. The caller was the manager of Chuy's Restaurant located at 1728 Barton Springs Road.
APD patrol officers arrived and found that Jenna and Barbara Bush, 19, were alleged to have been involved in this incident.
As no offense was witnessed by APD officers, following routine procedures, further investigation is required to determine if any charges will be filed. APD and the Texas Alcohol Beverage Commission are investigating this incident.
A fake ID rates a 911 call. Wow! This is not the old Austin I knew and loved.
No wonder they're cancelling "Walker, Texas Ranger."
The utility companies demanded the fixed prices, not the consumers or the politicians. They wanted to freeze in an artificially high profit margin because prices were expected to drop and stay down for a long time. They would not accept deregulation without the price freeze.
So no, there was no "political" requirement for price caps. The price caps were a requirement of the utilities, who also said (lied) that they accepted the risk that prices might go up during that time.
The caps were in place only until the utility companies recouped costs for things that the consumers and taxpayers had already paid for, but whatever. If they paid off their costs early, the price caps would be removed--which is exactly what has happened in San Diego since last year. San Diego is in every bit as much trouble as the other two utility companies. Why? Because the consumers can't afford the prices. Why? Because they are rigged prices.
So you are all incorrect in saying that price caps or irresponsible consumption caused this problem. Yes, the inept deregulation caused it, but the price caps made no matter one way or the other. The problems were caused primarily by not allowing the utility companies to form long term contracts--but again, this was because the utility companies would then have a strong incentive to game the system--and by forcing them to sell off their holdings, which was supposed to create competition, but did no such thing. Both of these mistakes are what enable the suppliers to game the system.
Price caps didn't cause a damn thing. There's no way the consumers could pay these kind of prices, either. The only thing the price caps did was keep the financial burden at the utility, rather than pass it onto consumers, who would have been equally unable to pay it.
CalIdiot,
How many Porches do you own? None?
If Porches cost $1, how many would you own?
If consumers had to pay higher prices, they would do this crazy thing called "conserving" in order to use less electricity and therefore reduce demand.
It is the fact that end-users are immune from the natural use-detering effect of higher pricers which leads them to use just as much power as they would if electricity were actually cheap.
This, in turn, leads to blackouts, because the marginal cost of power now is quite high, so ultility companies (wisely) refuse to buy the marginal power needed during peak use situations, and instead limit demand/consumption by blackouts.
You have your choice, Moron. You can reduce demand through higher prices, or you can reduce demand through blackouts. It makes no difference to me which you choose, but stop fucking whining about it.
Grow. The Fuck. Up.
There's no way the consumers could pay these kind of prices, either
Correct. They would lower consumption in order to lower their electric bill. Businesses would decide to take a two-week vacation to avoid high energy costs. Morons who live their lives on-line would shut the computer off for a couple of hours per day.
All these actions would lower demand, increase supply, and lead to a moderation of prices.
But because the public is immune from the REAL price of electricity, they use just as much as in electricity gluts. But the utility companies can't afford the high costs of marginal kilowatts, so they don't buy them. Which means that there are periodic blackouts.
Christ. It's "Basic Reality 101," but the Kalifornia Dreamers just don't have the prerequisites for the class.
There's no way the consumers could pay these kind of prices, either
How much of a buffoon do you have to be to say this and then maintain that "price caps don't cause blackouts"?
If electricity prices were allowed to rise to cover costs, electricity would become more expensive, which would suddenly cause millions of consumers to drastically conserve (no AC, one light on in the house, no tv and computer at the same time).
Because, as CalMoron says, "There's no way the consumers could pay these kind of prices, either." Since they couldn't pay these prices, they would use less electricity... down to the amount they COULD use. Which would of course mean "no blackouts."
"Outgoing Majority Leader Trent Lott accused Vermont Sen. James Jeffords on Wednesday of mounting a ``coup of one'' that stripped the GOP of Senate control and handed power to the Democrats.
"`The American people, and the people of Vermont for that matter, did not vote to put the Democrats in control of the Senate,'' the Mississippi Republican said. ``The decision of one man ... has, however else you describe it, trumped the will of the American people.''
The "will of the American people" is to have Republican control of the Senate? Settle down and do some arithmetic, Senator. The 50 Democratic Senators received more votes than the 50 Republicans. You were in charge only because Alaska's 200,000 people get as many Senators as California's 30 million.
In addition to being a relief, it is nice and fun to see their well-laid plans go amuck.
By the way:
If electricity is now sooo expensive/so unreliable (that's what you get when you fix prices), why don't you all just put up the "cheap, efficient" solar panels and windmills you always claim are a good alternative to conventionally-produced power?
Seems like if such things were EVER cost-efficient, they'd be cost efficient NOW.
And yet: No solar farms. No wind fields.
Gee. What liberals say doesn't match up with how they actually ACT. What a shock.
one example - Interstate 10 between LA and Palm Springs. There is a stretch where you see windmills about as far as you can see in all directions. (Well, not quite, since you can see a long way - but there are a ton of them.)
Ohhhhh... gee... but you STILL have an energy crisis?
I thought wind could solve all of our problems.
BTW, Janny, which parks/forests/national wildlife reserves are you going to tear down to make room for all these wind fields and solar farms? You need an awful lot of acres for them.
The Clinton Legacy and the Congressional Elections of 2000 - GARY C. JACOBSON (Political Science Quarterly)
Gary C. Jacobson asserts the 2000 election and its bizarre aftermath in Florida accurately reflected the configuration of partisan politics that crystallized during the Clinton administration: close partisan balance in
Congress and in the electorate; distinct regional, cultural, and ideological divisions between the parties' respective electoral coalitions; and a sharp partisan polarization among political elites, echoed, though more faintly, in the broader public. The trends that produced this political configuration predated the 1990s, but they accelerated during the Clinton years, and Clinton himself was a catalyst in their development.
Or as Ace might say "The South is another country"
Gimme a decade of subsidies at that same level as the nuclear power and oil industries. We'll be a lot better off than three generations of oil subsidies and two generations of nuke subsidies.
This reminds my of the moronic paen to the free market Safire made on memorial day (celebrated) which has absolutely nothing to do with republican policies.
I'd like a cite that the energy companies demanded the retail price cap.
But it doesn't matter. You can say that they were especially nefarious in planning this scenario. It is still the responsibility of the regulators to prevent exactly what has happened. You can say that the regulators were more captive than I'm saying, but that doesn't change the point.
The nuclear power industry only exists because the companies are exempted from full liability, live off govt r&d, don't pay for cleanup and receive other subsidies. Speaking of free markets in this environment, heavily subsidized (how do we count the Gulf War and the huge amount of money spent in support of the Saudis and other OPEC members?) in so many ways is disingenuous at best.
More
Soon all but the Moronic among us will wake up and smell the BushSHit.
I'm sated. It's hard to get energized by the Texas conspircay against California.
Besides, the Jeffords switch dooms my chances for a seat on the federal bench.
Isn't it funny that Bush promised to change the tone in Washington and he's done just what he said he'd do; instead of a well-adjusted First Daughter who attended classes and graduated from college, he's brought in one no one will admit has a strange habit of trying to test the limits of her familys patience AND the state laws while publicly embarrassing her father almost weekly?
Now, if any kid of a President had a built-in excuse for falling into drink, it was Chelsea after the last few years and what she went through...strange that it is the cutie with the moralistic mom and dad who's going round the bend.
And then Bush's people started talking about their bipartisan initiative on the tax bill.
Republicans. They learned from Reagan the power of the Big Lie. We'll see how this round goes.
Jay:
Please provide a citation that the oil industry has ever been "subsidized."
As far as I know, it was a precious (and profitable) comodity within a decade of its discovery. So please explain (with authority) when these "subsidies" occurred.
"Now, if any kid of a President had a built-in excuse for falling into drink, it was Chelsea after the last few years and what she went through...strange that it is the cutie with the moralistic mom and dad who's going round the bend. "
Isn't it funny that Chelsea's been caught slosh-drunk, and three of the Gore siblings have been busted for illegal drugs, and yet we didn't hear any of Judith's penny-ante attacks-on-children-disguised-as-concern then?
"going round the bend" = trying to get served alcohol in a restaurant
Anybody remember, back in college, selecting which restaurant to eat at according to how lax they were about asking for ID?
I do. I remember Tumulty's and Margarita's being favorites of mine. Because they'd serve you 90% of the time, no questions asked.
I guess I had "a problem," and Judith would have been tying herself into concerned knots about it, had she only known about my secret shame.
There is some reason this kid is pushing her dads buttons and doing it in such a public fashion.
That reason is that nasty, gossipy, bitchy liberals working for minimum wage keep calling the cops on her.
Judith,
When Karenna & Co. were smoking hash and pot, which of Al Gore's buttons were they seeking to push? Just curious.
I'm not concerned; I think it's funny as hell. And if you had half a sense of humor, you would, too.
It was funny when Gores kid got caught, it was funny when any of them did. Jenna is the catch du jour....and it's funny. The perfect Republican family, doing what most families do except this one has a penchant for telling us all what we should do. So it's funny when something like this happens.
Oil depletion allowance.
Gulf War.
Mideast weapons transfers.
Drilling on public lands.
Infrastructure installation on public lands.
Strategic oil reserve
ON the flip you've got the breakup. The cites I find on the net are all organizations you'd dismiss. I'll take a look at the president's budget and follow up.
And, Ace, just because something is profitable doesn't mean it isn't subsidized.
Jenna's a dirty, dirty girl who needs a spanking from Daddy.
It's not her fault that her father is such a hypocrite. You may be right that she is trying to let us know about that.
Hey Ace, was Chelsea drinking illegally? And what did you say at the time of the Gore gals ganga experience?
You're as moronic as ever. I knew you'd cite the Gulf War as a "subsidy."
Strategic Petroleum reserve ... oh, that's a "subsidy." I see. We put aside a bunch of federally-operated oil fields to insure against interruption of supply and that's a "subsidy."
The oil depletion allowance you speak of is, duhhhh, simply resource depreciation. You are allowed to depreciate the intial costs of every other fucking capital investment in the world; I find it hard to understand how applying the NORMAL rules of accounting to oil counts as a "subisidy."
As you put wear on machinery, you depricate it.
As you dig out a mine, you depriciate it (mineral depreciate allowance).
But -- oh, my! -- normal tax breaks (and by the way, they're not really "breaks"; depreciation is a legitimate (and crucial) method of charging your costs against profits over a period of time) for oil are suddenly a special "subsidy" of some sort.
Laugh. Obviously there have been no subsidies, if this the bullshit you have to resort to.
"Mideast weapons transfers. "
Laugh. Okay. Gee, I thought we gave Iran weapons as a payback for keeping the hostages captive past November... oh, now it was for oil. (Anybody know precisely how transfers to a foreign government "subsidize" oil, by the way?)
"Drilling on public lands."
Giggle. Which public lands? how much of a royalty do the drillers pay?
"Infrastructure installation on public lands. ":
Read: Port-a-pots count as "subsidies."
Jay, do you even take yourself seriously? I can't imagine you do.
What a fucking BLUFFER.
"Smoke and toke, Karenna. Smoke and toke."
It's like a Boy Scout troop in here.
So Jenna likes to knock back a cold one or three.
He likes to be corrected.
Jay,
If you can explain what "depreciation" or resource depletion are, and why they're necessary rather than being "subsidies," I'll stay out of your thread for a week.
First, oil fields are not investments. This is pure economic rent and they cannot depreciate. The use of accelerated depreciation on oil fields that retain their value--if anything appreciate--is a large subsidy. An oil field is not a capital good. But it is treated that way for tax purposes.
That's what you call a subsidy.
On the reserve, it's no difference from the butter mountain the Europeans have accumulated.
Drilling on public lands.
Infrastructure installation on public lands.
are still open.
Bet you don't understand the idea behind depreciation/depletion.
Uh, yes they can. We call it "depletion." The same way we deplete gold mines, aluminum mines, coal mines, and even helium mines.
"The use of accelerated depreciation on oil fields that retain their value--if anything appreciate--is a large subsidy."
All resources run out, dipshit. That's why you object to drilling in ANWR, remember? Because ANWR, the SECOND LARGEST OIL FIELD IN AMERICAN HISTORY, will "run out" in "just six months."
" An oil field is not a capital good. "
Yes, it is. It is a capital investment.
"But it is treated that way for tax purposes. "
Ummm, because it is.
Jay, if I pay six million dollars for an oil field, shall I just charge the six million in costs against my first year's profits (which are likely to be zero, and certainly nowhere near my costs in any event)?
And then, I suppose, I should count no costs for the oil field the following year, when I do turn a profit?
That's what you call a subsidy.
On the reserve, it's no difference from the butter mountain the Europeans have accumulated.
See Pechman Aaron and Taussig.
Yes, it is. It is a capital investment
No it isn't, Ace. A factory is a capital investment. An oil field is a source of future income.
"And there's a reason they don't call it the oil depreciation allowance"
Because it's not depreciation, which happens to machinery and plant.
It's "depletion."
Jay:
Yes or no: ANWR will run out in "just six months."
Yes or no?
Jay,
If I pay six million dollars for an oil field, how do I account for those costs?
Annual Tax Subsidies to Petroleum
($ million) Federal Tax Subsidies $ Millions Percentage depletion 985 Alternative fuel production 756 Expensing of exploration and development 140-275 Enhanced recovery 97 Deferral of income from controlled foreign corporations 180-286 Foreign tax credit (in contrast to deduction) 777-3,380 Accelerated depreciation 113-4,438 Research and experimentation 114 Working capital exception to passive loss limitation 60 Alaska native corporations 0-15 Exclusion of interest on municipal bonds 0-180 TOTAL 3,222-10,586 TOTAL adjusted for state taxes 3,319-10,904
YEAR ONE: Six million paid, $20,000 income
YEAR TWO: Zero paid (for oil field itself), $50,000 income
YEAR THREE: Zero again for oil field, $100,000 income
Let me get this straight: It is some sort of "subsidy" to accurately reflect the initial costs of acquiring the oil fields in determining taxes for years two and three.
Then it lists ten or twelve categories of "alternative energy research," which, you know, is by definition not for oil.
"Accelerated depreciation 113-4,438 "
Ah. The old depreciation "subsidy," again.
Yeah. It's a real "subsidy." Yuuuuuhp.
It's land, and land doesn't depreciate. There is this special case related to mineral and other depletion allowances, but that is not a capital depreciation. It's a special case. There are two ways to look at this. The first is to suggest that the whole notion of letting a firm treat an asset that does not depreciate as a declining asset is a subsidy. The second is to suggest that the general concept is okay, but that the accelerated depletion schedule in the tax code is clearly a subsidy.
Yawn. It is a method of matching costs with income.
If you have TEN MILLION dollars in costs in Year one but no matching income, then you're shit out of luck. It sure would be nice if you could spread that cost over ten or so years, so you could match income with the real costs of the oil field; but according to Jay, tough titty.
This is equivalent to the provision in the tax code that allows software development shops to treat software development costs as either depreciable capital expenditures or to expense them. Giving companies the alternative allows them to manage their tax bills based on their spending patterns.
It HAS NOTHING TO DO with costs of acquisition.
When Jed Clampett hit his well for the price of a bullet, he gets to apply the depletion allowance. If you spend 100 million dollars finding a one million dollar well then you get to apply the depletion allowance to the one million dollar value of the well. And you get to assume that you extract the oil more quickly than you actually will.
You know nothing about this, Ace.
Percentage depletion -- Not a subsidy. The general way the tax rules are set up to allow matching costs with later income, so that ten billion dollars in first year's costs are not "wasted" protecting zero income.
"Alternative fuel production" -- not oil
"Expensing of exploration and development " Normal business expense. Good christ all mighty. An sports agent can deduct the business expense of flying to Atlanta to scout a prospect, but if an oil company does the same, it's a "subsidy."
Earth to Jay: Businesses don't pay taxes on their GROSS income, but on their NET income. Receipts minus costs. This is not a fucking subsidy, dipshit, unless every business in the country is subsidized (which makes solar and wind equally subsidized, because those companies, too, are "subsidized" to the extent they only pay taxes on profits)
Enhanced recovery -- I don't know what htis means.
Deferral of income from controlled foreign corporations -- I am betting a million dollars that this is a general tax provision; where oil companies are involved, you claim "subsidy."
Foreign tax credit (in contrast to deduction) 777-3,380 -- Ditto.
Accelerated depreciation 113-4,438 -- All plant and equipment is depreciated, in every industry, for rather good reasons. Again, this is no more a "subsidy" than the general provision that you deduct employee's salaries from your income to determine profit.
Research and experimentation 114 -- Well, this is a business expense. If it's beyond the normal business expense, I admit it's a "subsidy" of sort; but then, what it is is a subsidy for alternative fuels.
Working capital exception to passive loss limitation 60 -- A general provision of the tax code, applicable to all businesses. Not a subsidy.
Alaska native corporations 0-15 -- A "subsidy," to the extent it is, of Native Indian/Eskimo corporations which we have no bloody authority to tax.
Exclusion of interest on municipal bonds -- No idea what this could mean. I have a bad, bad feeling this is municipal bonds for ROAD CONSTRUCTION, which you are again counting as an "oil subsidy."
What a retard.
Where'd you get the chart, retard?
". The depletion allowance has nothing to do with spreading expenses across years"
Yes it does. If it's anything like the various mineral depletion allowances -- which I can only assume it is -- that's precisely what it is.
You know nothing about this.
You do get a depletion allowance, but you wouldn't need it, as you'd have no profits.
"You know nothing about this."
Actually, retard, I do. And I've read more than one article from the "World Resource Institute" about it.
Jay:
YES OR NO: ANWR will be exhausted in "just six months."
YES OR NO? Answer NOW, dickweed. You don't get your choice of which questions you answer and which you don't.
Jay:
YES OR NO: ANWR will be exhausted in "just six months."
YES OR NO? Answer NOW, dickweed. You don't get your choice of which questions you answer and which you don't.
From Jay's "World Resource Institute" article:
"A tenet of good tax policy is to match costs and benefits appropriately. In general, costs that yield future benefits must be capitalized and recovered over that future period for tax purposes. But oil and gas producers can instead expense certain exploration and development expenditures - that is, take an immediate tax deduction - regardless of how long these investments might be expected to generate future income"
Uhhhh, so can every corporation for most capital investments. We do this to encourage and spur investment.
So, let's take a hypothetical purchase of an oil field. It costs $1 million to buy. Actually, let us be specific: The land costs $8 million, but the costs associated with the oil itself is $1 million. In other words, the land itself is worth $7 mil, the oil $1 mil.
So, I buy this land. Each year for ten years I receive $150,000 in income (net for all costs except the cost of acquiring the oil in the first place).
Now, which of the following scenarios is closer to reality?
A) In Yr1, I make $150,000, but I have $1 mil costs for acquiring the oil; $150,000 minus $1 mil is zero (well, less than zero, but zero for tax purposes). Then, for the next nine years, I make $150,000, and I pay taxes on that.
OR:
B) In Yr1, I subract one-tenth the cost of acquiring the oil as a depletion cost, or $100,000, against my income. I also do this for the next nine years, so, for each year, I pay taxes on $50,000 rather than $150,000 ($150,000 income minus $100,000/year depletion allowance).
Jay:
Which scenario better reflects economic reality?
(The one-tenth figure is made up, of course. I have no idea how the schedule actually works.)
And if that's not what the depletion allowance is, please state PRECISELY what it is, rather than your "no, it's not like that, it's a subsidy" bullshit.
Tell me how it works. Actual tax code, or an article which analyzes the provision, would be useful. Nothing conclusory (i.e., "this is a subsidy," as Jenny B. Wahl from the "World Resource Institute" tells us).
How is the depletion allowance determined? What is the schedule? Etc.
"Now, if any kid of a President had a built-in excuse for falling into drink, it was Chelsea after the last few years and what she went through...strange that it is the cutie with the moralistic mom and dad who's going round the bend."
That's one way to look at it. Another way is that Jenna has inherited a genetic trait from her father, a trait generally referred to as alcoholism.
"Aw Judith, c'mon. You're not being fair. She's doing what every college kid does. It's true that the 21 yo drinking laws are stupid, and she's illustrating that, but find me a freshman who is not a complete geek who isn't drinking once in a while.
I drank in high school, but I didn't get caught once. This girl gets caught every other week, in spite of lots of people trying to keep her out of trouble. At a certain point, which IMO we've already passed, you've got to consider that this may be more than an occassional drink.
Hey, if things haven't changed in the last thirty years, even freshmen who ARE complete geeks do lots of drinking. I know this from personal exper . . . uh, I mean, so I've heard.
Sixth street is college drinking territory after dark, with thousands of young students prowling together taking in the beer and the music.
And I don't like to talk very personally, but drinking was one experience I didn't have to excess in high school or college, though I went to plenty of beer parties and drinking events in college.
Has anyone got a picture of her? (smile) 
Andrew Sullivan addresses rumors
Andrew Sullivan on President Clinton in his most recent column (5/27):
Anybody who thinks he has changed is fooling himself. These patterns of behaviour are driven so deep they will almost never change. In this sense, Clinton is once again a sex scandal waiting to happen. And the scariest thing is that he barely knows it.
Andy on the rumors about himself (AndrewSullivan.com, 5/30):
I ignored them as I have learned to ignore most such threats over the years. To answer them is to give legitimacy to the very premises of their argument: that the most intensely personal details of someone's private life can and should be used for political purposes.
Andy on Clinton (5/27):
Witness what happened in Oslo after Clinton gave his speech two weeks ago. Rather than retiring to bed, Clinton went out to dinner with some students at a branch of TGI Friday, the American restaurant chain. A 19-year-old girl presented him with a tulip. Clinton gave her a hug. "You're too beautiful to only get a hug," he told her.
Andy on Andy (5/30):
What, after all, was McCarthyism? In the history books, it is described as a method of political intimidation where someone is accused of something allegedly shameful, not told who his accusers are, and forced to respond.
Andy on what journalism has become:
This morning, the New York Post has run a lead item, after a perfunctory phone call to ask me if there was any truth to the story. This is what journalism now is.
Is "This" the same "This" Andy praised as when he defended Drudge as cutting edge journalism just weeks ago, despite Drudge's vicious smears against Sidney Blumenthal?
Yawn.
Treasury printing presses to roll!
Yesterday, I suggested that the reason Jenna keeps getting caught is that vicious liberal partisans keep calling the cops on her.
Judith sarcastically replied: Oh yeah, the owner of Chuys is a nasty, gossipy, bitchy liberal...you are so friggin' obvious.
Well, here are the facts, from a Salon article (on the front page):
Police say the manager of Chuy's restaurant called 911 on Tuesday evening after minors --allegedly the Bush daughters -- tried to order drinks
Judith, would you say that it is normal behavior for restaurant managers to CALL 911, the LINE FOR EMERGENCIES, when underage kids try to order beer with their tacos?
In my experience, it is not. A 19-year-old ordering a beer is not an "emergency." You either serve them (most of the time) or you politely say, "Sorry, you're underage. But I hope you enjoy your meal."
Ridiculous. And if every liberal-gay waiter and bartender in the world were callling 911 on me every time I tried to sip an "illegal" beer, I'd have been in trouble more times than Jenna.
Laugh... anyone here who's ever worked in a restaurant and called 911, THE EMERGENCY LINE, to report an underage drink-orderer, please raise your hands.
Anyone ever have 911 called on them?
Giggle. "I've got an EMERGENCY. There's a 19-year-old girl ordering a margarita/no salt and I don't know what to do!"
What's unbelievable is that the cops even bothered to come. The actor-wannabe/manager of Chuy's sure must have pressed and pressed to get cops to come.
Why?
Where were they when Al Gore's kid was speeding?
Democrats are nuts to pursue it, but since they live in an echo chamber, they probably will.
Drag the bitch through the mud!
Ahhhh... the left-wing snitch police.
President Bush will ask Congress for extra defense spending of $5.6 billion in the current fiscal year, administration officials said yesterday, which is far less than the armed services expected from a new president who campaigned on a promise to substantially increase the Pentagon budget.
The supplemental budget request, as it nears completion, does not include any new money for ballistic missile defense, which Bush has depicted as a top priority, or for the weapons systems and operating costs that he said the Clinton administration had grossly underfunded.
"Democrats are nuts to pursue it, but since they live in an echo chamber, they probably will."
There is no political story here. It is a People Magazine type story, like Hugh Grant and the hooker, or Robert Downey Jr. Jenna follows a long line of first family newsmakers, from Billy Carter to Roger Clinton. If you want to back far enough, there was plenty of family gossip about Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, to say nothing of Grover Cleveland.
Everybody is interested in this story. That is, everybody except for politicized conservatives who fear that any criticism of anybody named Bush is a liberal attempt at a coup d'etat.
Fielding,
I draw the line at children. And I know the media drew the line at children... back when the children in question were named Clinton and Gore.
But now, as always, it's "different." Jenna trying to buy a margarita is a "story"; Katarina Gore getting caught smoking hash by campus police is, for some reason or another, not.
Yeah, right...
Fielding: The quotation above reminds me of the governor who said all teachers in his state supported accountability standards--or at least all the competent teachers did.
I am not interested in the story. To the degree that it is political, if pursued hard enough, it will work to Bush's advantage: 1) Jeffords' defection is knocked off the front page; 2) it humanizes Bush in an age when voters seem to want their leaders to not stand too highly on a pedestal.
I watched for (at least) two years the ineffectiveness of such tactics when Clinton was in. Democrats would be wise to learn from Republican mistakes, rather than duplicating them.
Devoid of politics, the story has no interest at all: a 19 year old girl/young woman tried to buy booze. Whoop-de-do. Jenna Bush isn't a celebrity like Hugh Grant, but only has tangenital fame because her father is the President.
Jenna seems to have an alcohol problem. She may. It may even be genetic. She may also be having the time of her life, caught a couple of bad breaks and all will be forgiven when she puts on the shaving cream swimsuit for MTV's Spring Break 2002.
Who can know these things?
Except us, I mean.
Ah. Whatever. The Corona spilling from the bottle onto her form will make the dispute irrelevant.
And then, after she's in the heap of 12 sorority girls packed into the same Motel 6, with a nasty hangover, we can reconvene to discuss her genetic predispositions.
You would if you were helping her remove it...
"I watched for (at least) two years the ineffectiveness of such tactics when Clinton was in. Democrats would be wise to learn from Republican mistakes, rather than duplicating them."
Why do you think that the "Democrats" are behind this story? The gossip press is behind this story. And they don't care whether it helps or hurts the president.
OK, a few Democrats here are snickering. After eight years of listening to people like concerned describe Clinton as the "WH Rapist", you would snicker too.
c'mon Fielding, what a dumb thing to say
Unless someone gives an interview to Ed Bradley saying that Jenna fondled him, and then someone gives an interview to Andrea Mitchell saying that Jenna raped him.
Actually - and I think I speak for my fellow dirty old men here - I wouldn't.
Ha ha ha ha.
It could be pitch tar.
Trent Lott is crying that Jeffords defection "amounts to a coup of one" which "thwarts the will of the American people"
I guess that's the will of the people expressed in the fact that Gore got more votes but never mind that was not the most interesting thing Trent said.
In a clear warning to his Moronic Master, Lott also remarked that it was "liberating" to be in the minority because, among other things, the Congressional Republicans would now move to break up a deal the Bush Admin reached on education because "conservatives don't like it" and would add "tax breaks" to the Patient's Bill of Rights legislation (hell if they're gonna pork up THAT with cuts, just wait til capital gains and energy legistlation comes up!)
Its enough to give the Moron-in-Chief those nightmares again...You know, the ones where people are trying to "read Poppy's lips" and the conservatives are knifing him in the back?
Et tu Trent, then let fall Moron!
Like Boozer father, like Boozer daughter?
Hi my name is George and I am an alcoholic.
Pretty much my take, too.
Golden Oldies of the '70's Energy Analysts Say (LAT)
Bush's his case for sweeping federal action rests on antiquated arguments last heard in the 1970s.
For example, the administration argued in its report that if U.S. oil production is allowed to continue rising at the same slow rate it did during the last decade, "our projected energy needs will far outstrip expected levels of production."
But, analysts said, America's appetite for energy has outstripped its ability to produce fuel for most of the last century. And although the fraction of its needs that are met by imports has risen from 35% to 52% over the last three decades, the increase appears to have caused the country little economic or political trouble.
"It's surprising how the administration goes back to the 'gap-ology' of the '70s: that if we don't immediately do x, y, and z, there's going to be a gigantic shortage," said MIT energy economist Paul Joskow. "Its own report shows the economy has responded pretty well to the ups and downs of supply and demand."
"It's internally inconsistent," Joskow said of the report. And that is not the only inconsistency that analysts spotted.
In fact nne respected independent consultant, Energy Ventures Analysis of Arlington, Va., said recently that more than half the extra capacity Bush claims we need will be up and running in the next four years alone. An MIT energy economist that the real problem may be a glut of power without the need to subsidize Bush's energy friends.
Since he's Bi she figures she's got half a chance of scoring with him in rehab.
Still its gonna be VERY interesting to see how much rein the Wingnuts give their boy.....
Delicious in fact.
Why bother with NPR when you have ME?
I'm hurt
See Message # 20935
Their boy is basically off the reservation. The centerpiece of his campaign is passed. The rest is just marking time. He stiffs Californians, you go nuts. He stiffs the Pentagon, they go nuts. He stiffs the conservationists, they go nuts. He moderates on judges and education because Jeffords makes him.
I wouldn't arrive at any conclusion on this issue until after Defense Secretary Strangelove finishes testifying before Congress.
Jay,
True or false: ANWR will run out of oil in six months.
That's if it were used exclusively.
But Ace's point that it won't produce an enormous delta in oil supplies is correct, especially given our consumption rates.
(Think it was Ace and Rask then.) 
Click on pic for report.
Corrected link
What's the big whoop? When we've had spikes in oil prices, production rose and consumption fell and prices came down. Why isn't the administration trusting the marketplace? It couldn't be that they are planning to um, well, uh, increase subsidies, could it?
There is no crisis here, except maybe in California. Prices have spiked. Supply will rise. Demand will fall, or rise more slowly.
Closing paragraph:
The whole idea of a national policy is a leftover from the early eighties, when wonkish journals and government reports whined about how America was doomed, because, unlike Japan and Germany, it did not have a coherent national industrial policy. Those countries catered to their corporate powerhouses and subsidized the development of new technologies. In the parlance of the time, they picked winners. Unfortunately, national policies—whether for energy or agriculture—do more to support incumbents than to encourage innovation.All of which makes you wonder what the Bush people mean when they talk about the miracle of the markets. When, exactly, did the invisible hand become the invisible handout?
Whoa, and look at that. A government agency prepared that resource survey. Do you suppose oil companies are charged fees to support this activity?
True or False: The oil in ANWR will run out in X number of year (X 95% likely to be 15 or under).
Why are you afraid to answer, Chickenshit?
Is it because you previously claimed that "oil does not run out" and "does not depreciate, but produces forever, like normal land use rents" but this claim is utterly inconsistent with your claim that ANWR will run out in six months?
But the Bush energy plan isn't pro-market. It's pro-business. Actually, it's pro-energy business. And, above all, it's pro-traditional-energy business. Setting out a National Energy Policy suggests that companies in the energy business are uniquely important and deserving of assistance—in the form of either tax breaks or regulatory leniency—and that they should be insulated from risk.
20972. JayAckroyd - 5/31/01 2:25:02 PM
True.
My point to Indy is that it is a quibble about exactly when it will run out. It's a relatively small field. So what?
There is, therefore, a 50% chance of finding a 9 month's supply of oil in the 1002 Area, at $24 per barrel.
It's not possible to extract (or use) the oil that rapidly, so it's not the best way to characterize it. I haven't rechecked my memory, but IIRC the actual estimate is that the reserve can provide 5 percent of our oil consumption for about 20 years--something like that.
And I never said that. I said you do not understand the economic concept called rent. Not the landlord's concept called rent. The value of oil is not a capital value. It's a scarcity value, which economists call rent to distinguish it from capital.
You know nothing about this stuff.
"True or false: The oil industry receives subsidies from the federal government."
False. A "subsidy" cannot be defined as a tax provision that applies generally to every other taxpayer.
Every other taxpayer can get the Foreign tax reduction, if that taxpayer pays foreign taxes in addition to American taxes. (And of course there's a good reason for that; it makes little sense, and certainly isn't quite fair, to pay the same taxes twice simpy because you operate in two separate tax jurisdictions.) Yet your idiotic article claims this is a "subsidy."
Again and again, you claim it's a "subsidy" if oil is treated like every other mineral and receives a depletion allowance, or if oil companies depreciate the equipment they buy like every other corporation, etc., etc., etc.
If these are "subsidies," then EVERY business is subsidized. Including, by the way, the wind and solar companies you claim DON'T get subsidies. And yet they are entitled to the same sort of tax breaks for depreciation, research and development, foreign tax credit, etc.
You are a chickshit. You are a cocksucker. I asked you FIVE TIMES to answer a simple true or false question. Rather than answer it -- as an adult would -- you ignored it like a child, because you are not interested in discussion, you are interested in whining and bitching like a three year old who wants a cookie.
And that answer to my question Ace makes it perfectly clear that you have no interest in honest discussion. This is my last with you.
Good. Fuck off and die, chickenshit.
Ace, I didn't ignore it. I wasn't here.
Ah... you "weren't here" and therefore didn't know I asked the questions yesterday... and yet simultaneously you DO know I asked the question of you three or four times.
How do you know I asked the questions when you weren't here, while you simultaneously claim you don't know I asked them at all?
And, of course, I asked three more times today before you finally broke down to grudgingly admit the fucking obvious.
"A "subsidy" cannot be defined as a tax provision that applies generally to every other taxpayer."
What do you call it? And how is it different from a subsidy, other than in name.
"First, oil fields are not investments. This is pure economic rent and they cannot depreciate. The use of accelerated depreciation on oil fields that retain their value--if anything appreciate--is a large subsidy. "
Jay, how does an oil field "appreciate" in value once the oil is tapped out?
Do you think that the cost of oil is included in the price of land? If so, then how can the value of the land itself "appreciate" in value once the most expensive part of it is wholly consumed?
How does this happen, Twinkle-Toes?
If -- if -- I bought a plot of land in ANWR, do you think I'd be purchasing it for its value re: development and sale or for its value re: oil?
Do you think that oil-rich land's cost would be based chiefly on the oil or on the land itself?
And when I deplete the land of oil, what happens to the price of the land, dear?
Just want to say it isn't about Jenna drinking; it's about her lying. See, we don't mind her prankish drinking...it's using someone elses ID to do it.
Lying. Bad. Shouldn't do it...
Fielding:
If a company deducts costs from income to determine profit-- and thus, as everyfuckingbody does, only pays taxes on its actual INCOME -- would you say this is a "subsidy" because the company is only being taxed on net income, rather than gross income?
Well, Jay and his hippy-dippy World Resource Institute claims this IS a "subsidy." Apparently, a non-subsidized industry would be taxed on its gross income, even if its income didn't actually exceed its costs (i.e., it lost money and no net income).
Fielding,
If I own a company, and I spend $20,000 on research and development, $150,000 on salaries, and another $50,000 on business-related expenses, and I garner $250,000 in gross income, would you say that I had net taxable income of:
A) $30,000, which is the amount my income exceeds my costs to produce that income
B) the full $250,000, despite the fact that $220,000 of that actually represents costs
I think most non-retarded persons would say A. The IRS has said A, since its inception.
And yet Jay calls the normal "deduct costs from income, the subrahend represents net taxable income" formula a "subsidy" when applied to the oil industry.
His point, incidentally, was that "wind and solar aren't subsidized like oil," but, of course, wind and oil receive these same "subsidies." EVERYONE DOES.
Congrats, Fielding.
Now Bush may come within one strike of being sent to jail for six months under the three-strikes-and you're-out law that her father instituted while governor of Texas.
If she gets a strike from the TexMex incident, one more and that little puppy will be Caged like Eleanor Parker in a B-movie...and we all know how often a politicians kid has to come under the same type of law enforcement a regular little screw-up kid does.
Fielding,
Here's another analogy. I go to Vegas and I wager (and lose) $50,000 of my own money. But then I make $100,000.
Now, did I make $50,000 and owe taxes on that, or did I "make" a full $100,000 and owe taxes on that?
If the government chooses to only tax me on my actual net winnings, is that a "subsidy," or is that just acknowledging the reality that I did NOT really "make" $100,000 at all?
Again, Jay -- and Jay's "World Resource Institute" -- believes that not taxing an oil company on its net income only represents a "subsidy," and that for it to be "nonsubsidized," we'd actually have to tax it on a lot of money the company didn't clear.
Otherwise, it's the end for me.
I know you think Teri Weigel's ugly and all, but you're going to need some muscle on your side to make it to the finals.
My affection for you is outweighed by my disdain for Teri Weigel and my utter indifference to the whole contest.
BTW, I think Teri Weigel was on Al "Screw Magazine's" Midnight Blue show here in NY a week or two ago... she gave the repellant Goldstein a blow-job. Because he asked for one.
What a lady.
(At least I think it was her. He kept showing a video clip with Weigel and another chick... maybe the woman he was interviewing was the other chick. But I think it was teri weigel. She plugged the totallyteri site.)
I just voted againt Nikki Dial.
Hotline: McCain Set to Rip The Moron A New Asshole
Ain't life great!
What think you of Sullivan's explanations on his website?
He told me he could sense the anger in my voice. I told he he doesn't want to be anywhere around me when I'm actually angry.
His "I am not a hypocrite" was supremely Nixonian.
And when he talked about a high-tech lynching" -- WOO! What's next? Is Andy gonna cork up and sing "Mammy" in tribute to Clarence Thomas?
First Gray Davis kicks ass and takes names - a 60% Demo vote all but guaranteed in 2004
BUT THAT's not the worst of it...
Worse still, worse even than his idiot daughter walkin in to 7-11 to buy a six of Lone Star, Secret Service phalanx in tow
Lott and DeLay are ready to rip his balls off if he tries to move to center
The tax cut has thrown the budget into the shit can before the ink even dried
Nobody's buyin the NMD
The military is freakin at how fast Bush dumped them
The non-profits are bitchin that Kompassionate Konservativism is a Krock
McCain is ready to rip the stoopid shit
AND NOW on "Inside Politics" the wingnuts have issued a scathing report accusing Bush of favoring the "radical homosexual agenda!!!!!"
This in a debate between a wingnut freak and a Log Cabin Moron on Inside Politics today.....
Deee-fuckin-licious
And its only Jeffords +1
He must be speakin Mexican because I don't understand a word our Moron is sayin here.
$30K a month to badmouth the new President of the United States, blaming him for 15 years of inaction by local Democrats, just isn't working.
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Police cited President Bush's 19-year-old twin daughters for violating state alcoholic beverage laws Thursday.
It was the second offense for Jenna Bush and the first for her twin, Barbara.
Police accused Barbara Bush of being a minor in possession of alcohol and Jenna Bush of misrepresenting her age for allegedly trying to use false identification to buy alcohol, according to a statement from the Austin Police Department.
Both are Class C misdemeanors under the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code and carry a fine of up to $500, attendance at an alcohol awareness course, community service and 30-day driver's license suspension.
A third person, Jesse Day-Wickham, also was cited for being a minor in possession of alcohol. An associate of the Bush family said Jesse Day-Wickham is a girlfriend of the Bush girls.
I meant to thank you for your link in Message # 20787
It was quite illuminating (so to speak).
I don't recall jexter commenting on it. Since it pretty much contradicts everything that jex has been telling us about the CA power situation, and it is written by a source with a prayer of being unbiased, I'd like to know whether it sways his thinking, whether he simply ignores it and clings to his preconceived notions, or whether he has actual rebuttal points.
Now they're begging the rest of the country for inexpensive electricity. And we're helping (as soon as Blockbusters lowers its price to $1.99 for two-day rentals for new movies).
The reality is that nothing built, nothing accomplished by California Democrats regarding energy needs.
So what is that 15,000 Megawatt monster that went on line near Lancaster yesterday, one year early because Davis speeded up the process and what of that plant the San Jose City Council finally approaved under threat that Davis would use his power to pre-empt the approval process..that some kind of mirage...
Maybe so its been awfully hot around here - for Bush
They wish Bush had stayed home to take care of his nympho alcholic daughter.
On the one hand, a Cal Poly trained economist, specializing in energy, and working for the Federal reserve Board.
On the other hand, a couple of California residents with questionable economic credentials.
On the one hand, cogent arguments, supported by facts, and making internal consistency.
On the other hand, wild pronouncements, unsupported assertions, and claims at variance with basic economic theory.
It's so hard to decide.
On the one hand, a Cal Poly trained economist, specializing in energy, and working for the Federal reserve Board.
On the other hand, a couple of California residents with questionable economic credentials.
On the one hand, cogent arguments, supported by facts, and making internal consistency.
On the other hand, wild pronouncements, unsupported assertions, and claims at variance with basic economic theory.
Speakin of reality checks and absymal ignorance, afternoon Dusty!
Let's see there's Paul Krugman, Alan Binder former vice chair of the Fed and Princeton economist, and a rather smart fella at UC Irvine, another at UC Berkeley...
The real question is who would believe YOU!
Alan Blinder, a Princeton economist and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, warned that energy woes in California alone would "take almost a half a percent of the gross domestic product off of the national economy."
Blinder and others argue that short-term relief -- for about 6 to 12 months -- is necessary while new power plants are being built.
"Most times and most places, I agree price caps are not the long-run solution, but they can be part of a short-term solution," Blinder said. "There really is a case for temporary price caps to shield consumers and the California and national economy from the full force of the energy shock."
It does take someone who can manage to take his ideological blinders off and Dusty is the last one you'd expect to do that.
the Federal Energy Commission - no friend of free markets or Californians - has already found that our consumers have been ripped off by at least 7 Billion Dollars in 2000 alone...
They only recently have obtained in the face of fierce opposition from Enron, additional documentation on that company's energy arbitrage activities....
Trouble is Ken Lay is now trying to use his Moron Muscle to get the FERC chairman fired.
Now who ya gonna believe Dustaroo!
Krugman has been pretty thoroughly discredited. Sadly, I might add.
Blinder's not exactly unbiased, but I'll give him a listen. Do you have a link to his complete remarks, or am I expected to go only on your selected quotes?
the Federal Energy Commission - no friend of free markets
Can I quote you on this?
If you're going to be snide, it's better to be accurate. I made no comments about the economics of the piece. I pointed out one factual error, and I asked for a cite about the breezy "Californians forbade any new power" claim, with no factual backup that I could see.
The utility companies demanded the price freeze. That the piece didn't mention this suggests an overeagerness to blame it on California's desire to protect consumers--or ignorance. Neither of which speaks well of its "objectivity".
It was also a trifle dramatic with the claims about how thet poor dear power companies were barred from creating new generators. It is certainly worth mentioning that we have stringent ecological standards, but the piece didn't even examine whether or not this played into the immediate problem--and was definitely a bit biased in its description.
It's an opinion piece, with a few conclusions that appear to have come right out of Enrons press office. That doesn't make it all wrong, but I wouldn't be so hasty to say it's obviously unbiased.
Did you actually read the article? I see you spouting irrelevancies. Are you under the impression that they rebut the article in any way?
Blinder agrees that caps are not the long term solution. I'll reserve judgement on his overall comments until I've seen his complete remarks.
Blinder was an advisor to Gore . Doesn't mean he has sold out like Krugman, but I'll read his commentary with a grain of salt, thank-you very much. (That is, I'll read it if you ever provide the link.)
Signed, an energy creature
A small handful of large energy companies are manipulating the market from Seattle to San Diego--and laughing all the way to the bank. These energy conglomerates--Dynergy, Reliant, Enron, Williams and others--produce power for as little as a nickel or a dime per kilowatt hour and sell it into the Western states for prices spiking as high as a dollar during rolling blackouts.
The result is not only the transfer of tens of billions of dollars of wealth from consumers and businesses to the energy companies, it is also a massive energy price shock that now threatens to pull the entire West Coast, and eventually the rest of the country, into a recession.
Bush could easily short-circuit this recessionary shock by imposing a firm, regionwide price cap of 15 to 20 cents. This would end the profiteering and still provide ample incentives for generators to supply power and build additional power plants. Moreover, a regionwide price cap, as opposed to a California-specific one, would prevent generators from playing one state against another.
You got economists.
That was Peter Navarro of the UC Irvine School of Business.
Navarro is probably among the top one or two experts on electricity markets in the country.
It wasn't a popular area to specialize in years ago. Now he's making a name for himself.
Try doing a name search in the LA Times.
Well, the prices are 70% higher than their already very high norm since deregulation and the country has formally admitted that power suppliers are gaming the system. Any objective piece would have at least mentioned that.
I usually respect Krugman, but lately he's been squealing like a stuck pig in the desert.
Alan Blinder, a Princeton economist and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, warned that energy woes in California alone would "take almost a half a percent of the gross domestic product off of the national economy."
In the short term, perhaps. But the market distortions brought about by price caps (which, in the law of politics, are never short-term) would be likely to depress long-term growth and cause inefficient resource allocation.
Allowing the market to function in power generation is good environmental policy, as well, since it will bring some elasticity to electricity demand, and thus promote conservation and investment in renewable technologies.
I did.... tryin to get the inside track for a public policy seminar this summer and micro economics class this fall.
Blame the energy providers, blame the new President, when it was the Democrats' decision not to build your own power plants that got you in the fix you're in.
No one feels sorry for you anymore. Get Blockbusters to lower its prices.
Heh-heh... So glad I moved out of LA-LA Land.
If the energy providers are really manipulating the market, I see nothing wrong with going after them with good old-fashioned antitrust law.
Granted price caps may not be the best solution. I am personally intrigued by windfall profits taxes but you're concerned about market distortions!??!?!?!?!?
Gimme a fuckin break! The present market isn't free, it isn't even "distorted", its a joke!
27 Billion for 7 Billion worth of power?
Fuck.
C'mon Dusty UR not that Lazy....See over there on the right hand side of this page in the little yellow section....see the name Paul Krugman...
Sometimes your stupidity amazes even me.
I ask for a link to an article by Blinder, and you point, condescendingly, to a link to Krugman.
I bet I don't even have to connnect the dots.
I used to respect Krugman. Even when I didn't agree with him. But that's pre-NYT.
See Message # 21055 before you blow a gasket.
Arbitrage of the kind that Enron practices will take FERC years to figure out given their lack of will power and Ken Lay's interference with their operations.
FERC not the Sherman Act that is the statutory remedy.
State "little Sherman acts" are also available and Bill Lockyer our AG has threatened to put some people in jail. The State PUC is also investigating and has already made out a prima facie case.
Dynergy knowing its ass is out a mile has rumored a willingness to settle.
See LC I have something of an advantage. I not only worked in energy albeit in the 70's when this tired crap was first invented (I was working FOR the oil companies); I not only have 20 year friend or is it 30 now who is a lobbyist for UNOCAL, but I also worked for a Fortune 500 legal staff which was always trying to beat off anti-trust suits as it diligently but largely unsucessfully sought an oligopolist position in its market.
I know what the fuck I am talkin about because I worked for the Evil Empire
Krugman's recent hyperbole in calling the Bush tax cut a "crime" did it for me. I'm not crazy about the tax cut (I agree with the Cato statement that it's essentially a lot of costly smoke with no fire of reform -real tax reform has to move toward emphasizing taxes on consumption), but Krugman's rhetoric has truly gone around the bend, lately. The man has lost it.
Robert G. Szabo, partner Van Ness, Feldman, Sutcliffe etc..Washington DC
Bob Szabo's practice focuses primarily on federal regulatory and legislative law and policy issues relating to energy, the environment, natural resources and transportation
Known Bob since 1976.
I bow to your experience, and acknowledge that the oil companies and ENRON are evil incarnate. But why not take the next logical step and allow these guys to price themselves out of the market?
Why you ask when Texas gas fields are nearly equidistant?
Because El Paso's aren't the only lines to the Northeast.
Look I spent my early 20's arguing AGAINST oil price controls during the Nixon, Ford and early Carter administrations (albeit with about 75% conviction)...I am not a price control guy..neither is Blinder, neither is Krugman, hell neither are Davis and Feinstein for that matter nor Peter Navarro...but c'mon!
Ciao
While there is no evidence that any such plan was carried out, the numbers are suggestive. According to Tapper, all counties in Florida received a total of 446 military overseas ballots between election day and Monday, Nov. 13. But by Thursday the number had swelled to 2,575, and by Friday the number was 3,733.
Just a coincidence, no doubt.
...I thought Reagan was directly responsible for the AIDS epidemic?
Infection rates among gay men dropped precipitously in several cities after the intensive preventive efforts of the 1980s, said Dr. Helene Gayle, director of CDC’s National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention.
“But now we’re seeing these extremely high overall rates and really frightening rates among blacks — numbers similar to those we saw in the beginning of the epidemic, during some of the peak years,” she said.
(...must've left out the part about how all these new infections can be traced directly to the 2001 prez inauguration).
Senator Jeffords Agrees to Refund Vermont Donations from Republicans
NyT
I'd not be so sure it won't work eventually.
Electric Utilities: The Argument for Radical Deregulation" by Peter Navarro, in Harvard Business Review (Jan.-Feb. 1996),
Should I forget about a link to Blinder?
Selected Excerpt:
This does not mean, however, that Davis is doing any better for California than Bush. Nothing illustrates Davis' incompetence better than his botching of the state's transmission grid purchase.
This option had a dual purpose: provide cash to the near-bankrupt utilities to pay off creditors and get the system working again, and wrestle back jurisdiction over the wholesale electricity market from intransigent federal regulators.
Davis failed miserably in closing that deal, with disastrous consequences: California remains dependent on the feds; Pacific Gas & Electric is in a bankruptcy court, and Southern California Edison continues to hover on the brink of receivership.
Worst of all, the aborted transmission grid deal has left the utilities without adequate funds to pay off the state's small generators, and many are no longer willing or able to produce. This is perhaps the most important but least understood aspect of the current crisis. About 700 small generators provide roughly a fourth of the state's power. Davis' bungling has led to the loss of more than 3,000 megawatts of that supply.
[emphasis added]
Dusty:
Jexster's links almost always prove the point exactly the opposite of the one he's trying to make. He'll take an article titled "Gray Davis Responsible for Bungling the California Energy system" and simply re-title it "DA MORON RUINS CALIFORNIA."
He doesn't bother reading the articles; he assumes that no-one else will bother, either.
She was famous for linking to articles that disproved her assertions.
In hindsight, it is clear that Davis' worst mistake was not seizing the plants of the merchant generators who were ripping off California months ago. These generators bought the plants from the state's utilities after deregulation for a mere $3.2 billion. Since then, they have used the plants to "game" the market by withholding supply. Partly through such scurrilous methods, the generators have stuck Californians with an electricity bill that may eventually reach $100 billion.
Not one of my comments have referred to Davis. I too fault him for not taking more aggressive action in the face of criminal inaction by the FERC and Ken Lay's Moronic Puppet.
For the record, I accept most of Navarro's criticism of the governor PLUS I also fault him for not taking steps to form a buyer's cartel to offset the manifest power of the SELLER's cartel AND for not kickin Bush in the teeth and for not doing all of this when I first suggested he do it, in December 2000.
Perhaps he didn't want to offend the Moron. Perhaps he thought the Moron gave a fuck. Perhaps he is just a wimp.
This from the guy who in an instant depends on heated vitriol. As in "You are a chickshit. You are a cocksucker."
Classy. Really classy.
Is it your assertion that Governor Davis has failed miserably, is incompetent, and has bungled the energy situation?
If it is, I apologize for missing it in your posts.
TRUE OR FALSE: If prices are kept at an artificially low level (for end users) during a time of scarcity, the natural effect will be shortages: Due to the fact that end-users are insulated from higher prices, meaning they will not cut back on usage, instead using just as much of the good as they did during times of non-scarcity.
TRUE OR FALSE: Bread-lines in the Soviet Union are a good demonstration of the point that you can have plentiful goods, or goods sold at an artificially low price, but you cannot have plentiful goods sold at an artificially low price.
Please attempt to respond with the words TRUE or FALSE, as requested. Bonus points if you can manage to do so without using the words "DA MORON" or "POOPSTAIN."
In hindsight, it is clear that Davis' worst mistake was not seizing the plants of the merchant generators who were ripping off California months ago
Get it?
Got it?
Good.
Good xpost.
Thanks for confirming that you do believe Governor Davis has failed miserably, is incompetent, and has bungled the energy situation.
It didn't come across in your prior posts.
Assumes facts not in evidence but in your pathetic mind.
TRUE OR FALSE: Rising prices during periods of relative scarcity tend to cause a balance between supply and demand, due to the fact that rising prices cause consumers to cut back on use, thereby lowering demand (and, ergo, prices).
I wanna have a go at your "argument" that price caps would effectively force non-capped regions to subsidize California..
Ridiculous.
Jex:
I am assuming "no facts." I am asking a hypothetical question from an Economics 101 textbook.
IF it is the case that there is relative scarcity of a good, and IF end-users are insulated from rising prices, THEN there will be shortages due to the fact that demand is not checked by the natural use-deterrent effect of rising prices.
Is this a true proposition, generally, or not?
And is it true, generally, that you can have plentiful goods or goods sold at an artificially low price, but you cannot have both simultaneously?
The questions are posed without reference to California. Are these globally true, as a general matter?
Or not?
If the price of oil drops to $15 bbl and gas prices drop to $1 a gallon people will use more gas.
"I wanna have a go at your "argument" that price caps would effectively force non-capped regions to subsidize California.. "
Health-insurance providers keep the price of insurance for older consumers artificially low. Do they simply take a loss on such consumers, or do they use artificially high premiums for younger consumers to subsidize older ones?
One of the things I remember about Nepal and Tanzania is that they had scheduled electricity outages. Now that California is mimicking those progressive countries, they want to complete the conversion to third rate by nationalization? (What's the state equivalent—statalization?)
What's the track record of nationalizations? What proportion are generally agreed to have been beneficial? Is it as high as 1%?
Let me just say that when New York City had rent controls (not good IMO) but in any event renters in Hoboken didn't wind up subsidizing them as you in effect stated last week..
Later.
I am slightly (but not totally) surprised that you would excerpt and highlight a proposal for nationalization. Do you really know people who don't snicker at such proposals?
Do you expect anyone here (sans Cellar) to take such a proposal seriously?
Jexster:
TRUE OR FALSE: The cost for additional marginal units of production is often much, much higher than the average cost per unit of production. EXAMPLE: An auto factory can produce 3000 cars per month at a cost of, say, $1000 per csr, but if they attempt to produce many more cars (to keep pace with rising demand) they will generally find that the more cars they produce, the higher the cost of each additional car (due to increasing inefficiency, high overtime wages, greater defects and mistakes, etc.)
TRUE OR FALSE: If the prices of marginal units of production are capped, producers will simply charge more per non-marginal units. EXAMPLE: If a marginal car actually costs $1500 to produce, but prices are capped at $1300, the auto manufacturer will sell the marginal car at $1300, but he'll also charge $1300 for several non-marginal cars which ACTUALLY only cost $1000 to produce.
TRUE OR FALSE: Because California doesn't have nearly enough power production, they are resorting to using limited-use generators -- often dirty, old generators that can only be fired up when demand gets great.
TRUE OR FALSE: These generators usually only run 8 or 20 days per year. When you fire them up, you must pay the staff very high wages, because it's not a steady, salaried job.
TRUE OR FALSE: When you run these generators more then the number of days they're allowed to be run, the owners/operators have to pay stiff fines to the federal government.
TRUE OR FALSE: These limited-use generators are forced to run more often than they're permitted to by law, because otherwise California would go dark.
TRUE OR FALSE: But they still have to pay the fines for running too many days.
TRUE OR FALSE: These generators pass on the cost of fines to California's consumers -- because, after all, they're doing California a favor by running more days than they are permitted to; you can hardly claim they should be penalized for doing California a favor.
TRUE OR FALSE: This means that energy purchased from such limited-use generators will be much, much higher than energy produced by normal, year-round generators.
Jexster: Is all the above true? Or is it not true?
I love the California Dreamers who allow that, as a general matter, that prices (of course!) rise when demand outstrips supply, that of course the cost of marginal units is greater than the average cost per unit, that of course too few producers (energy generators) will lead to shortages and/or price spikes, that of course price-fixing cause shortages...
But all as a "general matter." Not as applies to California.
All the above are true of California, of course. But the California Dreamers claim that has NOTHING to do with California's predicament. Conventional economics cannot explain it; oh, no. It must be "price-gouging" (taken to mean "price-fixing," apparently) and "manipulation of supply."
Grow up. Texas has three times the energy production as California, despite having many fewer people and a much less robust economy, and guess what? Energy is fairly cheap in Texas, and certainly plentiful.
Is there a connection, perhaps, between high production and plentifulness of energy?
The California Dreamers all answer, in a big leftist chorus: Of course not! There's no connection at all! It's all just a coincidence!"
Fuck California. Y'all can go dark over the summer and have riots for all I care. But I'm not paying more for my power so that you can pay less for yours; and I won't allow you to export your blackouts to the rest of the power grid.
It is all true, but it is all Bush's fault.
Even when Clinton was President, and refused to impose price caps, that was Bush's fault.
Dusty:
Would you say that price-fixing will likely export blackouts and rationing to other states?
It seems to me that if prices are fixed, states that really, really, really need a marginal unit of electricity cannot pay more to get it. This, of course, leads to inefficiency of distribution.
California's price-fixing dreams will result in fewer blackouts for California... but at the expense of more blackouts in Utah and Idaho.
The problem is that there is more demand that supply. Fixing prices will not change that; it merely means that electricity will no longer be distributed according to who's willing to pay the most, but according to bureaucrats deciding "who needs it the most." If California's consumers are insulated from the use-deterent of rising prices, they will not modify their electricity use, and will use as much as ever; that means that demand and supply continue to be out-of-whack.
But if you fix prices across the Western United States, that means that California's demand/supply imbalace gets exported.
Is that true or not, do you think? Perhaps you can correct me, or state it better.
Jex is correct--you have successfully managed to miss the meat of the article. The guy does support price caps, and he makes it quite clear that he believes the real problem is that the power companies are gaming the system. That Davis fucked up early on is not in dispute. However, recall that there was no solid proof that the gaming was going on at first.
No. The problem is that supply is being artificially manipulated in order to inflate prices.
Ah. Well, that's still a demand/supply problem.
And this great conspiracy of price-fixing... competitors are all conspiring to manipulate supply? Including those Canadian providers that are also charging you high prices?
And gee whiz, how come no other states have the problems you do? The market is national, or at least beyond local, in that a power grid will extend through many states; and yet all these companies are conspiring to punish ONLY California.
What an odd conspiracy.
If that were the problem, wouldn't other states that have to import power be facing the same problems as California?
Certainly the excess of demand over supply is a significant factor, but there obviously must be other causes for California's power shortages and the amazing increase in its wholesale energy costs, problems that no other state is experiencing.
Would you say that price-fixing will likely export blackouts and rationing to other states?
I have no idea. Price-fixing is bad. There is enough evidence that it is bad that I don't need to ponder whether it would cause this particular problem.
California's price-fixing dreams will result in fewer blackouts for California
I don't know that this is true. I think he price-fixing is intended to "solve" the cost problem, not the blackout problem. If it is intended to solve the blackout problem, I've never heard a plausible argument (or even a weak attempt at such an argument) explaining how price fixing would reduce blackouts.
I don't know all the details of the rules, but they involve a requirement that all purchases take place at the maximum price rather than an average price (I'm grossly over-simplifying). I think the solution is to fix the broken rules, rather than pile on new idiotic rules.
Cal,
So your thesis is that when Utah needs marginal megawatts, the companies all say, "Eh, for Utah, it costs $700 per kilowatt-hour," but then when California wants it, they "artificially manipulate supply" and thus charge California $1200?
Is that how it works?
If so, why don't canny Utah suppliers purchase electricity for $700 and then export it to California for $800, making a nice profit?
What a very, very odd conspiracy... all the power companies are in on it. Canada is in on it. The states of Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Arizona and New Mexico is all in on it.
Gee.
All these silly theories to avoid the obviously true one.
Dusty,
Well, it should be noted, of course, that if prices are fixed at an artificially low level, producers will simply not bother to produce those costly marginal units.
(...which is why utility companies in California aren't providing enough power, of course. Since the costs of providing the needed marginal units of power exceed the price they are allowed to charge, they simply don't bother to purchase the marginal units, and instead forcibly ration through blackouts.)
Jex is correct--you have successfully managed to miss the meat of the article.
It is simulataneosly amazing how wrong you've been lately, and how well I've been able to curb my tongue.
But I'll bite. What evidence do you have that I missed the meat of the article?
Did I postr anything purporting to be a summary of the salient points?
No.
Did I post anything claiming that the "meat of the article was xxx"?
No.
Anyone who seriously proposes nationalization deserves either derision or ignoring.
No, it is a case of the market failing because of manipulation. At that point, it's a legal problem--in this country, anyway.
And this great conspiracy of price-fixing...
I said nothing of conspiracy. Don't invent things.
And gee whiz, how come no other states have the problems you do?
Most states aren't deregulated, remember? Of the ones that are, most of them still have a surplus that keeps generators from being able to game the system. Once that surplus disappears--as it has in New York--they will have the same problems.
And lo! New York does have these problem. Power Politics: A Failed Energy Plan Catches Up to New York
Substitute the names of people and states and it sounds just like California. They even have an ISO.
Well, it should be noted, of course, that if prices are fixed at an artificially low level, producers will simply not bother to produce those costly marginal units.
Of course. But they will claim (and with some justification) that the proposed level of the price caps is well above the average cost of production.
Price caps are bad. Even the economists that propose them know this; at best they think it is a pragmatic short-term solution to part of the problem. But it is like using air freshener on spoiling meat. Sure it helps, but it isn't solving the real problem.
Dusty, Cal, Ohio:
It should be remembered that Al Gore proposed higher gasoline taxes, and carbon-taxes, on energy.
His theory? That as price increases, demand/consumption naturally falls.
This theory is correct. Does CalIdiot gainsay it? If so, I'd love here her explanation.
Of course, while Gore's theory is completely, 100% correct, there is the obvious objection: Even if it is true, and would work, do we want it to work? Do we want to artificially raise the cost of power in order to encourage price-based conservation?
Ohio, it seems, is perfectly consistent (and correct) on this point, for once in his life.
But I'd love to hear California Dreamer CalIdiot explain why it is that Gore's thesis (artificially higher prices encourage conservation, and thus, lower supply) is correct while it is simultaneously true that the obverse (artificially low prices, which insulate end-users from price-based conservation, DO NOT artificially raise demand).
You read the article and then made a silly remark about the one thing that no one has contested--that Davis fucked up early on (he's out of a lot of options now--nothing much to fuck up). Jex didn't link it in for that reason, and it certainly is only one of the issues. So it's silly to complain that I assume you missed it when you responded to part of it--but not the reason it was linked in.
I said nothing of conspiracy. Don't invent things.
If there is no conspiracy, then when one company ARTIFICIALLY chokes off demand, another company will naturally increase supply to sell more power and will, in effect, completely erase the supply-debt.
The only way this would not happen is if there were a conspiracy that no one would over-produce to make up for another's under-production.
You can't "manipulate the market" unless 1) you have a monopoly or 2) conspire with your competitors to all do the same thing (which makes the conspiracy of competitors an effective monopoly).
You really have to stop talking about any such "theory" I have. I've made no such grandiose claims.
Yes, Gore was right. He was, on rare occasions.
I think the problem must be Hollywood. An entire industry dedicated to the suspension of belief. Apparently, it is a disease that has affected far too many residents.
The oil glut in the early-mid nineties occurred because OPEC did not function as an actual cartel-- too many countries were "cheating" and supplying more oil than they agreed to.
You cannot manipulate the market unless you all agree to, and actually abide by, production caps.
Enron cannot "manipulate the market" to any meaningful extent unless it gets Reliant, etc., to also choke off supply. Without that agreement (which is a conspiracy), Reliant will simply produce more energy when Enron produces less, and vice versa.
An energy company that attempts to "manipulate the market" in a "conspiracy of one" will merely decrease its market share.**
** Of course, any company acting in a such a manner will succeed in reducing total supply to SOME extent. But certainly they cannot effect serious increases in prices.
I don't know all the details of the rules, but they involve a requirement that all purchases take place at the maximum price rather than an average price (I'm grossly over-simplifying).
That was with the PX. It was run by auction. Iti went out of business at the end of January and the highest price bit hasn't been used since then, to my knowledge.
But the PX did use the maximinum price rather than the average. This was for a reason (Slack explained it a while ago in the Slow thread). I can only figure that no one assumed that suppliers would game the system, because it certainly seemed idiotic to me. At the time, it was widely hailed as a good idea.
CalIdiot,
No, you have no theory, no understanding, no economics, no facts. You have only, as usual, only inconsistent and unfounded assertions which would be laughable if printed on a bumper-sticker.
I (and Ohio, oddly enough) have now challenged your goofy claims with five or six serious posts.
You will, as per usual, avoid such powerful objections and merely decline comment.
You are incapable of actual argumentative give-and-take; you are only capable of JadeGold-like assertions absent of argument.
That as price increases, demand/consumption naturally falls.
Consumption has fallen in California from last year--and that even before a rate increase.
Also, the maximum power requirement in 2000 was lower than the maximum power requirement day in 1999--yet the prices were significantly lower in 1999.
Demand in California could plummet 50% and the power companies could still keep prices high.
I'm not complaining—just pointing out that you are wrong (once again).
Cal,
You don't understand anyting about economics.
You constantly trot out irrelevant factoids like "demand in 2000 is less than demand in 1999."
That's irrelevant. The fact that you can't comprehend that speaks volumes about you.
But let me explain:
Suppose in 2000 there is an egg-shortage. Why? I don't know. A salmonella outbreak.
Now, the price of eggs will NATURALLY rise in 2000. Supply will fall, but because price increases, demand ALSO falls, such that there is an equlibrium at a higher price.
Now, if a state chooses to fix the price of eggs in one state, suppliers will, of course, simply not sell many eggs to that state. The effect will be that eggs will not cost in that state what they cost elsewhere; the hitch is, of course, that there won't be many eggs available at those prices at all.
That's why you have shortages.
It doesn't matter what the supply/demand equilibrium point was in an earlier year. Nor in a later year, nor in Tasmania, nor on the moon.
Natural gas prices hit all-time record costs in 2000-2001.
You say California's demand has fallen? So what? Economics dictates the demand should have fallen MORE. Demand has fallen to, let us say, 40 demand-units. But if the end-users were not insulated from price-hikes due to price-fixing, demand WOULD HAVE FALLEN to 30 demand units.
Your idiotic idea is that, if we have an egg shortage, you can claim "California consumes no more eggs now than it did a year before, when there was no shortage" and from that you conclude "ergo, prices should be the same."
BZZZZ. Wrong. Prices should be higher. Much higher. If California has fixed the price of eggs, its demand for eggs may fall, but demand will not fall enough to reach an equilibrium with the lowered supply.
The oligopoly is taking advantage of some bad decisions by California (no long term supply contracts, no requirements of reasonably-priced power in return for sale of power plants, no working towards developing new power plants) which, it seems to me, has made the California market more susceptible to market manipulation than others. The New York Times article Cal links describes some other importing states' experiences and indicates reasons why those states have avoided California's fate (and why New York, which appears to have also blindly trusted market forces, may face the same one).
I think she's right that California's problems are largely due to an oligopoly of power producers manipulating the system.
If this were so, all power-importers on the western grid should also be suffering blackouts.
But they don't.
Because when the cost of electricity rises, the cost to end-users also rises in these states (whether by free-market forces, or by utility regulation boards, which approve of rate hikes when costs rise; such regulation boards are not as efficient as the free market, but they will usually do APPROXIMATELY what the free market would).
Price hikes in such states cause consumers to use less. Thus, no blackouts.
In California, prices charged to end-users are not allowed to rise. Ergo, consumers use just as much as ever, and do not use less. Thus, demand artificially outstrips supply.
Ohio, I'm really curious: You posit a conspiracy. Why is only California conspired against? How come Canadian companies charge the same amounts for power? Is this an international conspiracy?
I do not exempt the California deregulation process from stupidity at all--it was horribly handled. But the problem is not excess consumption, and the "price freeze" that is blamed so often would only have prevented the utilities from having financial problems by crippling the state's businesses and consumers by passing the costs on to them.
CalIdiot has yet to respond to any objection posed to her.
She has yet to explain:
-- Why no other western state has blackouts
-- why no other state has to pay the very high costs for marginal units of power that California does
-- how a "conspiracy of one" can manipulate the market (and yet the best known cartel in history, OPEC, can only manipulate the market when all/most suppliers conspire to restrict supply and actually DO restrict supply)
If any member of a cartel "cheats" and supplies more than they agreed to, the power of the cartel is diminished. The cheaters get to produce more at artificially high prices and experience a windfall.
But cheaters can only prosper if no one else (or almost no one else) cheats. When if two or three members of the cartel all cheat, the cartel is effectively renedered null and void, and the members of the nominal cartel become competitors.
We know from OPEC that production-caps are difficult to agree on and to enforce; we know that there are often cheaters who ruin the attempted cartelization. We know that OPEC is often not successful, despite the fact that cartelization is legal in OPEC countries.
Now, in the US, such cartelization and price-fixing are illegal. And yet CalIdiot and Ohio believe that ten American companies, all competitors, AND two or three Candadian power producers have all conspired together to create an illegal cartel.
And no one is cheating.
And there's no evidence of the conspiracy.
Certainly, it COULD happen. But is it likely to happen?
Toys
Ace asked the right question.
If you think an important part of the problem is "manipulation" of the system by the producers, why aren't the same problems occurring in other states?
Twp possibilities leap to mind:
Maybe you can come up with other possibilities.
(BTW, some might think that I disagree that there has been exploitation of the system. I don't.)
The system is different in other states. It's not an open market. I believe they all have long term contracts. And in states that are deregulated, the ones that don't have difficulties all have a surplus still. The vulnerability with both California and New York is in part created by the fact that they overestimated the time that their surplus would hold up. Once you don'thave a surplus, you have to pay what the market charges, and then they can charge whatever they like.
Yes, I have answered those questions.
Suppose in 2000 there is an egg-shortage.
But you see, Ace, there is no shortage. That is what is being artificially created.
We are beginning to have occasional power failures here in Texas.
Earth to MsIT: Everywhere on earth has "occasional power failures." It cannot be avoided.**
** Well, it could be avoided, if we invested an inefficient amount of money to produce power-grids capable of delivering very, very high amounts of power at any particular time, despite the fact that we don't need such a great capacity 97% of the time.
We don't overbuild power-grids, because it makes no economic sense to do so. The costs associated with occasional power-outs are less than the costs which would be associated with a super-duper-never-gonna-blackout power grid.
It started when the thermometer started rising,
Earth to MsIT: It always does. Power grids get overloaded in the summer, just as heating oil supplies get strained in the winter.
I suspect we'll be having some major blackouts later this summer.
I suspect you won't.
You guys... you see a tree fall and you think "global warming is causing trees to fall." It never occurs to you that sometimes trees just friggin' fall.
I live in New York. I experience two or three blackouts per year.
I used to live in Boston. There I experienced two or three blackouts per year.
I have also lived in New Jersey and Virginia. In those places, I experienced two or three blackouts per year.**
** Some blackouts lasted only a few minutes, of course.
It started when the thermometer started rising, and so far hasn't happened frequently enough to raise questions, but if it continues, I suspect we'll be having some major blackouts later this summer.
CalIdiot,
You haven't answered any questions.
You are ignored.
Yes, I know about power failures, particularly weather related. These haven't been of that nature, and have been more frequent already than in past summers.
As I said, they haven't occurred enough to warrant serious questioning, but we were warned earlier this spring, when the California woes were becoming known, that Texas could also experience similar problems (to a lesser extent) this summer.
Good lord. Who cares about blackouts? They aren't really the issue at all.
Why does no other western state have escalating power prices? I don't believe any of them are deregulated, are they?
"Yes, I know about power failures, particularly weather related. These haven't been of that nature, and have been more frequent already than in past summers. "
I'm not talking about weather-related power-failures, such as when transmission lines get icy and all or when transmission poles get knocked over by the wind.
I'm talking about the fact that every power grid is only designed to go X% over average, and sometimes events conspire to put more of a demand on the grid. When that happens, your power company will shut parts of the grid down to protect the entire grid from going down for a very long time.
See New York City, 1977. Power did not actually "fail" on its own in the great blackout of 1977 (at least not in New York). Rather, the system became strained and Con Ed (and several other suppliers) made a decision to shut down power in New York to prevent the entire Niagra-to-New Jersey grid from blacking out.
"Former President Bill Clinton will hold three 'thank you' dinners for major Democratic donors in coming months, starting with an event June 13 in Chicago. The dinner will be Clinton's first fund-raising-related appearance for the Democratic National Committee since he left office in January. Events are also planned in Northern California and Florida."
Such power-failurs are caused not by a lack of supply of electricity, but a maximum power delivery capability.
Yes, I'm aware of this too. What you don't seem to be aware of is that this is Texas, home of the air conditioner. Home of energy hogs. If it hasn't happened with such frequency in the past, why do you assume it can be so easily explained away now?
Why does no other western state have escalating power prices? I don't believe any of them are deregulated, are they?
Huh? It doesn't matter if a state has deregulated or not. If that state is forced to buy power on the spot-market, it should have to pay the same rate for that power as California does.
It doesn't matter if you've deregulated or not. If you have to buy power from Enron, they don't check a chart to see if you've "deregulated" or not.
Because Texas produces about 3X the energy it needs. I assume that most generators sign contracts which give local users preference.
Most blackouts are caused by a failure of power delivery, not a lack of power. California's blackouts are an exception -- those are supply-blackouts.
Of course, Texas' economy has grown, and perhaps it is now straining its grid. But if it experiences the unexpected sort of over-capacity blackouts (that is, normal, non-California blackouts), that's almost certainly because it's overtaxing its delivery system, not its actual supply of power.
Which is a problem, but a very different problem.
But I don't believe any of them are forced to buy on the spot-market. Certainly not on a regular basis.
You make a good point, and because it is related to a presentation I am working on for a conference next week, I'll tie it in.
Insurance companies face potential liabilities (the sum of all possible losses on all contracts) that is far in excess of their assets. There are good reasons for this.
An issue regulators, policyholders (indirectly, through regulators usually) and capital providers have to address is what probability of inability to pay is acceptable. The obvious desirable choice (0%) is possible if an only if the amount of capital is essentially infinite. I trust I can state this is not a feasible option without going into a detailed explanation.
The analogy is almost perfect. The only way to guarantee zero blackouts is to have enough stand-by (excess, normally unused) capability to cover any spike in usage. But this would require a multiple of the existing capacity of power plants. No one will pay for it.
On a related issue, there was an Economist article talking about the reliability of power. If I recall correctly, it was on the order of four 9's. That is, about 99.99% reliable. The article discussed the desire of some customers to have (6,7,8?) more 9's, and discussed the cost and system requirements associated with delivering power with a reliability of 99.999999%. (I don't recall the exact numbers but it was several orders of magnitude.)
I'd best stay out of it ;)
The power industry’s quest for the high nines
Excerpt:
Innovations are improving the quality of electrical power, so computer networks can run for not just 99.9% of the time, but for the 99.9999% that e-commerce demands...
For more than a century, the reliability of the electricity grid has rested at 99.9%—“three nines” in industry jargon. That permits about eight hours of outages a year. When the economy was built around incandescent bulbs and electric motors, three nines was more than enough to keep the wheels of industry turning. But microprocessor-based controls and computer networks demand at least 99.9999% reliability, or “six nines”, amounting to no more than a few seconds of allowable outages a year. And that is just a start. The report estimates that the quality of electrical power must reach “nine nines”—milliseconds of faults a year—before the digital economy can truly have the right quality power to mature.
Would you say that price-fixing will likely export blackouts and rationing to other states?
Of course not! The price "manipulation" (the better term) is a result of oligarchic supply constriction itself a deadweight loss. 
I wish they had used the same scale, though. Am I missing something? Is there a reason why they cannot both be expressed in the same units?
Gigawatt-hours is a unit of of energy (power times time equals energy); megawatts (note: no "hours") is a unit of power only.
I don't know why they aren't expressed in similar units.
Perhaps because windmills only operate a few hours a day...? But even so, you could still measure how many megawatt-hours they produce.
Actually, I think I know the answer:
Because the writer doesn't know physics, and couldn't find charts expressing both in the same units, and so he went ahead anyway and put his chart together in entirely uncomparable units. It's like having two charts, one which measures miles per gallon and the other which measures horsepower. They're not comparable.**
Or else he meant windpower-output in megawatt hours, but he forgot the "hours."
he could have at least noted that each gigawatt equals a thousand megawatts.
Hmmmmmm... Chart one should probably show "average power need," rather than total energy need. It's chart one's units which need to be changed, I think.
I'm not sure whether you are kidding or not (I'm notoriously impaired in that areas), but I want to make sure no one else takes your comment about windmills seriously.
The charts refer to total demand and total (within CA) production capacity, not just windmills.
We've heard in this thread that demand in CA is down. I'd be interested to hear how that squares with this graphic, which tells a different story.)
It's simply not happening. Grow up.
Clinton was innocent because we couldn't proooooove anything, remember?
You have zero evidence there's a conspiracy at work, and yet you unabashedly offer such snake-oil anyway with the conviction of a wild-eyed zealot.
If Enron is choking off supply, then the nice socialist Canadian companies ought to have a great incentive to increase production. And yet all companies are charging you roughly equal prices.
Again, grow the hell up.
Oh. I thought hte charts measured total energy need (in gig-hours) versus the total power capacity of WINDMILLS alone.
Dusty:
Look, I don't know, but it seems to me IMPOSSIBLE that California could have 300,000 GIGAwatt-hours of energy demand and yet have only 54,000 MEGAwatts of power capacity.
Assuming that megawatts and gigawatt-hours can be freely compared (by assuming that each megawatt of power capacity produces one megawatt-hour of energy per hour), that means that California produces only one sixth of one ONE THOUSANDTH of the energy it needs.
That, simply, cannot be correct. California's energy-debt is something like ten or twenty percent, not ninety-nine point nine four percent.
Oh?
California whines its electricity costs 700% more than it did two years ago.
By an extraordinary coincidence, the price of natural gas has spiked something like 300-500% of what it was two years ago.
Most electricity is produced by gas-fired plants.
Res ipsa loquitor, Ohio?
Demand in California was down first quarter from 2000 to 2001. It has been regularly reported. If you have magically found the charts that prove otherwise, go right on ahead and alert the media.
He is alerting you. Unless you are one of those Palm Beach voters who cannot follow the path of a straight line, you surely can see that (according to the Economist and the Cambridge Power Group) that demand in California has risen from 250,000 gig-hours to 300,000 gig-hours in the last two years.
I see now... your idiotic factoid is based on a single quarter.
Dusty,
In case my last post to you wasn't clear, I stand by my assumption that Chart Two shows only the power-generation capacity of WINDMILLS alone.
It is simply impossible that California produces (from all sources) less than one one-thousandth of the energy it needs.
The charts are poorly labeled and furthermore measured in units that are different in both scale and dimension. It's a botched-up job of presentation all around.
And, actually, CalIdiot:
The media typically reports that California's "Growing energy needs" outstrip its available production.
The only "media" which reports that "demand has fallen" is YOU, over and over again. Never have I heard this claim from anyone else, except you.
"California whines its electricity costs 700% more than it did two years ago."
I'm afraid those carefree days of merely a 700% increase are over. According to today's LA Times, "Prices have soared from an average of $31 per megawatt hour in 1999 to $258 by February, with a record of $1,900 during an emergency last month."
This is irrelevant. Compare average with average, not average with high-point marginal-unit cost.
The amount of scientific/mathetmatical/statistical illiteracy here is occasionally surprising.
Does Ohio not understand that the AVERAGE costs includes a mix of low, high, and average-cost units, or does he just not believe it matters?
The days when energy cost $31 per meg-hour also featured marginal unit-costs of $400-500; but we don't worry about the high marginal unit costs, because we know what the AVERAGE cost was, which includes the marginal-unit costs.
"But natural gas shipped to California now costs nearly five times as much as it did then, and three times more than the current going rate elsewhere in the country. For example, gas was selling for $5 per million British thermal units at the New York City limits in early May, compared with $13.54 in California at the Arizona border. Since most of California's power plants are fueled by gas, the high prices are being blamed for soaring electricity rates in the state."
(www.latimes.com/news/nation/reports/energy)
Ohio:
TRUE OR FALSE: If we had more power-generators, burning more FOSSIL FUELS, pumping out more "dangerous" CO2, electricity would be cheaper.
See, I think you'll say "False." And that's because your political dogma will not ever allow you admit that there are tradeoffs in life. We CAN have more plentiful power, but only if we produce more, and produce (inevitably) more CO2.
But you can't admit that. You want to believe (because your Democratic propagandists tell you so) that you can have your cake and eat it to, that you can pay Peter and Paul with the same dime, that yes, you can have it all, and all simultaneously.
This positioning requires you to doggedly deny that we need to produce more energy, and yet you still need some sort of reason to explain why California desperately needs more power.
Thus, "oligopolists all conspiring together" becomes the refrain.
"I think the story you're all missing is that there's a... vast right wing conspiracy, all conspiring against [California]."
-- Hillary Rodham Clinton to Matt Lauer; "California" substitued for "my husband"
The simple explanation: Clinton was lying
But that explanation was politically unpalatable, so a much more implausible theory was concocted: Clinton is telling the truth, but 100 people are lying about him
And so it goes. And so it goes.
The politically unpalatable truth: We need more fucking power plants, even at the (minor) expense of the environment
The politically palatable lie: Everything's great, we can have infinite power without burning any fossil fuels, but Evil Capitalist Bogeymen won't let us.
Yeahp. And the oil sheiks have cars that run on water, but they won't sell them to the West, to keep oil a precious commodity.
GOOD CHRIST ALL MIGHTY!!!
Hee, hee... I had no idea how much the cost of natural gas had spiked... but I GUESSED (just discounting the 700% cost for electricity) and I fucking hit it right on the fucking nose.
Boy, am I good.
Ohio:
Ah. I see. Now all the electricity companies are in cahoots (including the Canadian companies), PLUS all the natural-gas companies are in cahoots, too.
I do grant you that a lot of natural gas comes from OPEC, and OPEC is a cartel. And yes, OPEC price-fixes and conspires to reduce supply.
Which is a reason why we really should develop more domestic supply.
Every delusional leftist claim about how the world works demands an Adversarial Bogeyman to explain why their predictions always fail.
Why did the Soviet Union fail? Because the evil western powers strangled it.
Why doesn't California's price-fixing scheme work? Because nigger-hating Cowboy-Illuminati from Texas won't let the People's Republic of California fluorish like God intended it to.
No other state has "emergency" spot prices as high as California's. No one could reasonably attribute these unique-to-California circumstances solely to supply/demand disparities that California shares with many (most?) other states.
" ... the [Federal Energy Regulatory] commission is conducting a trial-like hearing into allegations that subsidiaries of El Paso Corp. of Houston acquired monopolistic power in the Southern California gas market last year and used it to reap profits."
"No other state has "emergency" spot prices as high as California's. No one could reasonably attribute these unique-to-California circumstances solely to supply/demand disparities that California shares with many (most?) other states."
You cite this as evidence of conspiracy. I cite this as evidence that California is responsible for its own problems.
An oligopolist conspiracy wouldn't choose ONE STATE out of 30 energy-importers to fuck over. If he wants to reap windfall profits, he can divide his artificially-high-profit-margin among as many buyers as possible. He will thus capture the same high profits. However, each buyer will feel the pinch much, much less, and will have far less cause to complain.
If I'm going to conspire to inflate the costs of eggs, I charge each of 30 buyers an extra $0.05 per egg. I do not charge a single buyer an entire $1.50 extra per egg while selling every other buyer the eggs at normal profit levels.
Why, on earth, would I engage in such a ridiculous and counter-productive conspiracy?
Why don't other states pay so much for marginal energy units?
Because no other state has to purchase so many marginal energy units.
If Utah needs to buy (let us say) six gigawatt-hours on the emergency spot market per year, they'll pay high prices for those gig-hours, but they only buy six of them. So, the average cost of electricity does not rise too much.
If California has to buy THREE THOUSAND gig-hours at emergency spot-prices, well, you're going to start to feel the costs of those marginal units in the average costs.
Furthermore, since no other state is suffering regular blackouts like California, there seems to be enough energy to go around. You'd think with California paying three times the going rate for natural gas, someone would be willing to make some good money by selling California natural gas at, say, twice the going rate - but for collusion.
Why don't these producers put the screws to other states that need to import energy? Maybe other states have more variety of sources of in-state power, or have intelligently ensured supply with long-term contracts. I don't know.
Incorrect. Or incorrect as far as you go.
Total cost of marginal units is not equal to the cost of one marginal unit. Total costs of marginal units equals cost per marginal unit TIMES the number of units you have to purchase.
If a marginal unit costs $1000, and Utah buys six of them, they incur a cost of $6,000.
If a marginal unit costs $1000, and California buys 3,000 of them, it incurs a cost of $3,000,000.
That's a big difference, Ohio.
Both states are "hit by the same costs"... but a state that doesn't have to supplement its energy supply so ofen will have lower total costs.
There is; but other states are willing to pay the high costs of marginal units, whereas California is not.
Porches cost $80,000. The fact that I do not own one, but others do, does not suggest "collusion." It suggests that I am unwilling or unable to pay for the car, whereas others are willing and able.
California could have all the power it wants. It could buy lots and lots of power. But its utilities cannot pass the additional costs of marginal-units on to the consumers, so buying such units results in a loss for them. Therefore, they simply don't buy the necessary marginal units.
Hence, blackouts. Not 24 hour a day blackouts, because most power is cheap enough to be sold to consumers without incurring a loss. But sometimes a marginal unit WILL cost too much, and the utilities will no longer simply absorb losses, so they simply don't buy the necessary energy.
Duh.
Strange concept: If you don't pay for it, you don't get it.
Why don't these producers put the screws to other states that need to import energy? Maybe other states have more variety of sources of in-state power, or have intelligently ensured supply with long-term contracts. I don't know.
Hah, hah. So now it's "Collusion" to treat an emergency, spot-market customer differently from one with a long-term contract? LAUGH.
The whole point of a long-term contract is to secure reciprocal advantage. The seller will not be able to charge as much as he otherwise might in a seller's market, but then, the contract assures he will also have a constant, contractual market for his product at a certain price.
Someone without a contract can of course buy power incredibly cheaply during a buyer's market... but, of course, when it's a seller's market, they're going to have to pay through the nose.
This is called "life," Ohio. this is precisely why people sign contracts. If you don't sign a long-term contract, you are freed of obligations (such as paying more for electricity than you might have to during an electricty glut) but you have no guarantees (and will have to pay what the market will support during an electricity crunch).
It is. To laugh. That now it's a "conspiracy" that people who sign contracts gain a volume discount/guaranteed price and those who don't, don't.
Dusty says
"If you think an important part of the problem is "manipulation" of the system by the producers, why aren't the same problems occurring in other states?"
Obviously because the regulatory regime in the other states doesn't permit manipulation. Look, there's no way to avoid the conclusion that the CA deregulation scheme was poorly designed, as per Jexster's Dallas Fed link. We're looking at similar problems here in NY, according to today's NYTimes. In both cases, the claim that the Times makes is that insufficient attention was paid to the process of moving from a regulated to a free market environment--that the deregulators bought the idea that electricity suppliers would be compelled to build new plants to deal with demand increases. When they didn't, th